State of the forests Tasmania 2017 i State of the forests Tasmania 2017 A report to the Minister for Resources and to be laid on the table of each house of parliament pursuant to section 4Z of the Forest Practices Act 1985. Submitted by the Forest Practices Authority in cooperation and consultation with the Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment, Sustainable Timber Tasmania 1 , the Department of State Growth, Private Forests Tasmania and the Australian Government Department of Agriculture and Water Resources. The report covers the period 1 July 2011 to 30 June 2016 and follows the format previously agreed with the Commonwealth Government for reporting on sustainability indicators under the Montreal Process and for the five yearly reviews of the Tasmanian Regional Forest Agreement. 1 Forestry Tasmania became Sustainable Timber Tasmania from 1 July 2017
489
Embed
State of the forests Tasmania 2017 · (formerly Forestry Tasmania), the Department of State Growth, Private Forests Tasmania and the Australian Government Department of Agriculture
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
State of the forests Tasmania 2017 i
State of the forests
Tasmania 2017
A report to the Minister for Resources and to be laid on the table of each house of parliament
pursuant to section 4Z of the Forest Practices Act 1985.
Submitted by the Forest Practices Authority in cooperation and consultation with the
Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment, Sustainable Timber
Tasmania1, the Department of State Growth, Private Forests Tasmania and the Australian
Government Department of Agriculture and Water Resources.
The report covers the period 1 July 2011 to 30 June 2016 and follows the format previously
agreed with the Commonwealth Government for reporting on sustainability indicators under
the Montreal Process and for the five yearly reviews of the Tasmanian Regional Forest
Agreement.
1 Forestry Tasmania became Sustainable Timber Tasmania from 1 July 2017
CRITERION 1: CONSERVATION OF BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY ..................... 16
1.1 Ecosystem Diversity ...................................................................................................................................... 16 INDICATOR 1.1.a EXTENT OF AREA OF FOREST TYPES ....................................................................... 16 INDICATOR 1.1.b AREA OF FOREST BY GROWTH STAGE .................................................................... 20 INDICATOR 1.1.c EXTENT OF AREA BY FOREST TYPE AND RESERVATION STATUS ...................... 24 INDICATOR 1.1.d FRAGMENTATION OF FOREST COVER ..................................................................... 29 INDICATOR 1.1.e AREA OF OLD-GROWTH BY FOREST TYPE BY RESERVATION STATUS ............... 31
1.2 Species Diversity ............................................................................................................................................ 35 INDICATOR 1.2.a FOREST-DWELLING SPECIES FOR WHICH ECOLOGICAL INFORMATION IS
AVAILABLE .................................................................................................................... 35 INDICATOR 1.2.b THE STATUS OF FOREST-DWELLING SPECIES AT RISK OF NOT MAINTAINING
VIABLE BREEDING POPULATIONS, AS DETERMINED BY LEGISLATION OR SCIENTIFIC ASSESSMENT .......................................................................................... 38
INDICATOR 1.2.c REPRESENTATIVE SPECIES FROM A RANGE OF HABITATS MONITORED AT SCALES RELEVANT TO REGIONAL FOREST MANAGEMENT .................................. 45
1.3 Genetic Diversity ........................................................................................................................................... 55 INDICATOR 1.3.a FOREST-ASSOCIATED SPECIES AT RISK FROM ISOLATION AND THE LOSS OF
GENETIC VARIATION, AND CONSERVATION EFFORTS FOR THOSE SPECIES .... 55 INDICATOR 1.3.b NATIVE FOREST AND PLANTATIONS OF INDIGENOUS TIMBER SPECIES WHICH
HAVE GENETIC RESOURCE CONSERVATION MECHANISMS IN PLACE ................ 61
CRITERION 2: MAINTENANCE OF PRODUCTIVE CAPACITY OF FOREST
INDICATOR 2.1.a NATIVE FOREST AREA AVAILABLE FOR WOOD PRODUCTION, AREA HARVESTED, AND GROWING STOCK OF MERCHANTABLE AND NON-MERCHANTABLE TREE SPECIES ........................................................................................................................ 64
INDICATOR 2.1.b AGE CLASS OF PLANTATIONS ................................................................................... 66 INDICATOR 2.1.c ANNUAL REMOVAL OF WOOD PRODUCTS COMPARED TO THE VOLUME
DETERMINED TO BE SUSTAINABLE FOR NATIVE FORESTS AND FUTURE YIELDS FOR PLANTATIONS ...................................................................................................... 68
INDICATOR 2.1.d ANNUAL REMOVAL OF NON-WOOD FOREST PRODUCTS COMPARED TO THE LEVEL DETERMINED TO BE SUSTAINABLE .............................................................. 72
INDICATOR 2.1.e THE AREA OF NATIVE FOREST HARVESTED AND THE PROPORTION OF THAT EFFECTIVELY REGENERATED, AND THE AREA OF PLANTATION CLEARFELLED AND THE PROPORTION OF THAT EFFECTIVELY RE- ESTABLISHED ..................... 81
CRITERION 3: MAINTENANCE OF ECOSYSTEM HEALTH AND VITALITY88
INDICATOR 3.1.a AREA AND PERCENTAGE OF FOREST AFFECTED BY PROCESSES OR AGENTS THAT MAY CHANGE ECOSYSTEM HEALTH AND VITALITY ...................................... 88
INDICATOR 3.1.b AREA OF FOREST BURNT BY PLANNED AND UNPLANNED FIRE ........................... 99
CRITERION 4: CONSERVATION AND MAINTENANCE OF SOIL AND
WATER RESOURCES ..................................................................... 104
INDICATOR 4.1.a AREA OF FOREST MANAGED PRIMARILY FOR PROTECTIVE FUNCTIONS ......... 104 INDICATOR 4.1.b MANAGEMENT OF THE RISKS OF SOIL EROSION AND THE RISKS TO SOIL
PHYSICAL PROPERTIES, WATER QUANTITY AND WATER QUALITY IN FORESTS ..................................................................................................................................... 107
CRITERION 5: MAINTENANCE OF FOREST CONTRIBUTIONS TO GLOBAL
INDICATOR 5.1.a TOTAL FOREST ECOSYSTEM BIOMASS AND CARBON POOL .............................. 119
CRITERION 6: MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM
MULTIPLE SOCIO-ECONOMIC BENEFITS TO MEET THE
NEEDS OF SOCIETY ...................................................................... 121
6.1: Production and consumption ..................................................................................................................... 121 INDICATOR 6.1.a. VALUE AND VOLUME OF WOOD AND WOOD PRODUCTS ..................................... 121 INDICATOR 6.1.b VALUES, QUANTITIES AND USE OF NON-WOOD FOREST PRODUCTS ............... 126 INDICATOR 6.1.c VALUE OF FOREST BASED SERVICES .................................................................... 130 INDICATOR 6.1.d PRODUCTION AND CONSUMPTION AND IMPORT/EXPORT OF WOOD, WOOD
PRODUCTS AND NON-WOOD PRODUCTS .............................................................. 132 INDICATOR 6.1.e DEGREE OF RECYCLING OF FOREST PRODUCTS ................................................ 134
6.2: Investment in the forest sector .................................................................................................................. 135 INDICATOR 6.2.a INVESTMENT AND EXPENDITURE IN FOREST MANAGEMENT ............................. 135 INDICATOR 6.2.b INVESTMENT IN RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, EXTENSION AND USE OF NEW AND
6.3 Recreation and tourism............................................................................................................................... 145 INDICATOR 6.3.a AREA OF FOREST AVAILABLE FOR GENERAL RECREATION AND TOURISM ..... 145 INDICATOR 6.3.b RANGE AND USE OF RECREATION/TOURISM ACTIVITIES AVAILABLE ............... 148 INDICATOR 6.4.a AREA OF FOREST TO WHICH INDIGENOUS PEOPLE HAVE USE AND RIGHTS THAT
PROTECT THEIR SPECIAL VALUES AND ARE RECOGNISED THROUGH FORMAL AND INFORMAL MANAGEMENT REGIMES .............................................................. 156
INDICATOR 6.4.b REGISTERED PLACES OF NON-INDIGENOUS CULTURAL VALUES IN FORESTS THAT ARE FORMALLY MANAGED TO PROTECT THESE VALUES ........................ 161
INDICATOR 6.4.c THE EXTENT TO WHICH INDIGENOUS VALUES ARE PROTECTED, MAINTAINED AND ENHANCED THROUGH INDIGENOUS PARTICIPATION IN FOREST MANAGEMENT ............................................................................................................ 164
INDICATOR 6.4.d THE IMPORTANCE OF FORESTS TO PEOPLE ........................................................ 166
6.5. Employment and community needs ........................................................................................................... 168 INDICATOR 6.5.a DIRECT AND INDIRECT EMPLOYMENT IN THE FOREST SECTOR ........................ 168 INDICATOR 6.5.b WAGE RATES AND INJURY RATES WITHIN THE FOREST SECTOR ..................... 172 INDICATOR 6.5.c RESILIENCE OF FOREST DEPENDENT COMMUNITIES TO CHANGING SOCIAL AND
ECONOMIC CONDITIONS .......................................................................................... 175 INDICATOR 6.5.d RESILIENCE OF FOREST DEPENDENT INDIGENOUS COMMUNITIES TO
CHANGING SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS ................................................ 177
CRITERION 7: LEGAL, INSTITUTIONAL AND ECONOMIC FRAMEWORK
INDICATOR 7.1.a EXTENT TO WHICH THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK SUPPORTS THE CONSERVATION AND SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT OF FORESTS .................................................. 178
INDICATOR 7.1.b EXTENT TO WHICH THE INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK SUPPORTS THE CONSERVATION AND SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT OF FORESTS .................... 190
INDICATOR 7.1.c EXTENT TO WHICH THE ECONOMIC FRAMEWORK SUPPORTS THE CONSERVATION AND SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT OF FORESTS .................... 208
INDICATOR 7.1.d CAPACITY TO MEASURE AND MONITOR CHANGES IN THE CONSERVATION AND SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT OF FORESTS .......................................................... 211
INDICATOR 7.1.e CAPACITY TO CONDUCT AND APPLY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT AIMED AT IMPROVING FOREST MANAGEMENT AND DELIVERY OF FOREST GOODS AND SERVICES ................................................................................................................... 215
APPENDICES 219
TABLES
Table 1.1.a Extent of forest by tenure (a) (in ‘000s) .............................................. 19
Table 1.1.b.1 Area of native forest types by growth stage and tenure groups (a) (in
TOTAL 1255 711 359 1029 3354 0.0% -0.3% 0.0% -1.0%
(a) Forest extent is as at the first quarter of 2015 and tenure is as at 30 June 2016
(b) Nature Conservation Act, Crown Lands Act reserves and includes all formal reserve categories within the CAR reserve system on public land
(c) Permanent Timber Production Zone land (public forest)
(d) This category of tenure broadly includes native forest on Commonwealth land, unallocated Crown land and FPPF land
(e) Includes reserved and unreserved private forest
State of the forests Tasmania 2017 20
INDICATOR 1.1.b AREA OF FOREST BY GROWTH STAGE
The spread of age classes across forest communities is a measure of ecosystem diversity, since
the structure and species composition of forest change as it grows older. Sustainable forest
management requires the maintenance of a full range of age-classes across the forest estate.
This indicator is intended to reflect the general distribution of the growth stages of the different
forest communities across broad tenure categories.
Mature forest as reported in this indicator is a different concept from what has been defined as
old growth forest under the RFA. Old growth forest is defined as having been subject to
negligible unnatural disturbance and being in the late mature to over-mature growth stages.
The specific reservation status of old growth forest for conservation purposes is reported under
INDICATOR 1.1.e.
The overall extent of various forest community groups as at 2015 was updated by applying
satellite-detected changes to the 1996 and 2010 RFA mapping, as described under
INDICATOR 1.1.a and INDICATOR 1.1.e. However, this community group mapping does
not reflect changes in the growth stages of the forest, and must therefore be combined with
forest structure (“growth stage”) mapping to address this indicator.
The age of a natural forest can be difficult to define, because a stand can contain trees of
different ages, understorey species may have colonised well after canopy trees, and precise tree
ages are expensive to measure. However, for the purposes of broad-scale categorisation, the
crown characteristics of trees are a reliable surrogate for growth stage, particularly for eucalypt
species.
In Tasmania, aerial photo-interpretation (PI) has historically been used to classify eucalypt
forests into three growth stages: young regeneration, regrowth (typically aged 20–100 years),
and mature forest (including over-mature or senescent stands). State forest was historically
remapped on a rolling 20-year cycle.
Statewide growth stage mapping of forest on all tenures was last completed in 1996. As there
is no longer a current program of growth stage re-mapping over all private property and
conservation reserves, the full effects on forest structure of fire and other natural processes are
not reflected in the data for these tenures. The gazettal of large areas of State forest to other
tenures, eg Nature Conservation Reserves, during the current reporting period means that some
of these areas have been re-mapped more recently than others.
Changes in forest structure and type due to harvesting, regeneration, and other forestry
operations are also recorded. Forestry Tasmania maps changes in the extent of native forests
and plantations on permanent timber production zone land annually using information from
ground surveys. Private Forests Tasmania also maps changes on private land due to harvesting,
regeneration, and plantation operations annually. For private land, this re-mapping is done
using available imagery based on the location and information submitted to the FPA for
individual Forest Practices Plans.
The practical limitations of growth-stage mapping continue to limit interpretation of the data.
In 1996 there was a high degree of spatial congruence between the RFA vegetation mapping
and PI-type mapping, because RFA vegetation mapping was based on PI-type derived polygons.
As a result, few areas were then classified as “Unknown”. Since then, there have been changes
in mapping methodologies. Additionally, because the growth-stage mapping and the forest
community group mapping are compiled independently and utilise different definitions and
attributes of forests, there are some areas mapped as eucalypt communities for which no
State of the forests Tasmania 2017 21
growth-stage can be determined. Lastly, growth stage cannot readily be mapped for most non-
eucalypt communities.
Despite these limitations, the data provide a good overview of the 2016 distribution of growth
stages by forest type and tenure. The results of the 2016 growth-stage analysis are summarised
in Table 1.1.b below and presented in greater detail in APPENDIX 1.1: (Tables 1.1.b.1-3). To
reflect the resolution of forest mapping, areas are generally quoted to the nearest 1000 hectares.
Since State of the forests Tasmania 2012, the gazettal of large areas of State forest into Nature
Conservation Reserves and future potential production forest has resulted in significant
increases to the extent of forest in the Conservation Reserves and Other Publicly Managed
Land categories (future potential production forest makes up 88% of Other publicly managed
Land).
In Conservation Reserves, there were increases of 4600 ha of regeneration, 19 200 ha of
regrowth forest; and 45 900 ha of mature forest during the reporting period. Conservation
Reserves thus now contain 5% of all forest mapped as regeneration; 23% of all forest mapped
as regrowth and 40% of all forest mapped as mature.
Even greater increases have occurred in Other Publicly Managed Land (largely future potential
production forest), with increases of 12 000 hectares of regeneration, 42 000 hectares of
regrowth, and 148 400 hectares of mature forest during the reporting period. These figures
translate to 13% of all forest mapped as regeneration, 9% of all forest mapped as regrowth, and
12% of all forest mapped as mature occurring on Other Publicly Managed Land.
Correspondingly, forested permanent timber production zone land represents only 62% of the
forested land which was previously categorized as multiple-use State forest. This represents
decreases of 7 000 ha of regeneration, 63 800 ha of regrowth, and 206 100 ha of mature forest.
permanent timber production zone land forests of known growth stage now contain 65% of all
forest mapped as regeneration, 35% of all forest mapped as regrowth, and 15% of all forest
mapped as mature.
Salient points from the 2016 data are as follows:
o 40% of mature eucalypt forests, across all land tenures are in conservation reserves.
o 41% of Tasmania’s forest estate is in conservation reserves with representation of each
forest type over 30% (dry eucalypt forest - 30%, wet eucalypt forest - 36%, sub-alpine
eucalypt forest - 80% and non-eucalypt forest - 68%).
o 43% of dry eucalypt forests are on private land. This does not include dry forests on
private land that are in gazetted private reserves according to the Nature Conservation
Act.
o 91% of wet eucalypt forests are on publically-managed land (27% on permanent timber
production zone land).
o For forests of known growth stage (largely eucalypt forest), 5% are regeneration, 24%
are regrowth, and 71% are mature forest.
o In dry eucalypt forests of known growth stage, the proportion of regeneration and
regrowth is relatively low, averaging 22% across all tenures. The highest proportion of
these younger dry eucalypt forests falls on private land (30%).
o In the wet eucalypt forests of known growth stage, the proportion mapped as younger
growth stages (ie. regeneration and regrowth) across all tenures is 42%, which is
significantly higher than in the dry eucalypt forests. This is due in part to the ecology
State of the forests Tasmania 2017 22
of wet eucalypt communities, which tend to grow in single-age stands in which
regrowth is readily identifiable. Dry eucalypt forests usually grow in multi-age stands,
so that even forests mapped as mature growth stage usually contain a proportion of
younger trees.
o Within the wet eucalypt forests, the highest proportions of younger growth stages are on
permanent timber production zone land (53%) and in Conservation reserves (28%),
with 18% on private land. On private land only a low proportion (13%) of total forest is
wet eucalypt, but over half of this (54%) is in the younger growth stages.
State of the forests Tasmania 2017 23
Table 1.1.b.1 Area of native forest types by growth stage and tenure groups (a) (in ‘000s)
GROWTH STAGE (in hectares)(c)
RFA forest type by tenure group (d)
Regeneration Regrowth Mature (including
overmature)
Unknown TOTAL
Conservation Reserves (e)
Dry eucalypt forest 0 60 384 10 455
Wet eucalypt forest 5 53 225 3 287
Sub-alpine eucalypt forest 0 11 36 4 51
Non-eucalypt forest (b) 0 0 0 463 463
TOTAL 5 124 646 480 1255
Permanent Timber Production Zone land (f)
Dry eucalypt forest 15 67 110 7 199
Wet eucalypt forest 49 126 123 9 306
Sub-alpine eucalypt forest 0 0 2 0 3
Non-eucalypt forest (b) 0 0 0 91 91
TOTAL 64 193 236 108 600
Other publicly-managed land (g)
Dry eucalypt forest 7 24 133 7 171
Wet eucalypt forest 7 29 63 3 100
Sub-alpine eucalypt forest 1 3 1 5
Non-eucalypt forest (b) 0 0 0 82 82
TOTAL 13 53 199 93 358
Private freehold land
Dry eucalypt forest 13 122 484 59 678
Wet eucalypt forest 3 56 40 11 110
Sub-alpine eucalypt forest 0 1 5 1 7
Non-eucalypt forest (b) 0 0 0 45 45
TOTAL 16 179 529 116 840
Sub-Total of RFA forest type (all tenures)
Dry eucalypt forest 35 273 1111 83 1502
Wet eucalypt forest 64 264 451 26 805
Sub-alpine eucalypt forest 0 12 46 6 64
Non-eucalypt forest (b) 0 0 0 681 681
TOTAL all tenures 99 549 1 609 796 3052
Notes: (a) Native forest growth stage as at 30th June 2016 on publicly-managed land, and 31st December 2015 on
private land. (b) Non-eucalypt communities cannot readily be mapped by growth stage. (c) Rounded to nearest thousand hectares (d) Tenure as at 30th June, 2016. (e) Nature Conservation Act and Crown Lands Act. (f) Forest Management Act 2013. (g) Publicly-managed land includes land managed by Public Authorities.
State of the forests Tasmania 2017 24
INDICATOR 1.1.c EXTENT OF AREA BY FOREST TYPE AND RESERVATION
STATUS
The extent of reservation of different forest vegetation communities is a measure of the degree
of protection of biological diversity at the species and ecosystem levels.
Under the Tasmanian Regional Forest Agreement (RFA), a comprehensive, adequate and
representative (CAR) forest-reserve system was established under a revised land-tenure system
to ensure that each forest community is securely protected for conservation purposes. CAR
reserves are those reserves designated to meet the above objective of the RFA and can include
both formal and informal reserves and occur on both public and private land. Some forest
communities are also protected on public land outside the reserve system wherever prudent and
feasible. In addition, forest communities identified as rare, vulnerable or endangered
(threatened) under the RFA process are protected from clearance and conversion on both public
and private land under the forest practices system other than in exceptional circumstances.
Under the Policy for Maintaining a Permanent Native Forest Estate, Tasmania has committed
to maintaining a permanent forest estate that comprises areas of native forest managed on a
sustainable basis both within formal reserves and within multiple-use forests across public and
private land. This commitment is to a minimum of 95% of the native forest area of the State to
be maintained on a state-wide basis.
The RFA recognised four components of reservation:
Formal reserves are publicly managed land-tenures that cannot be revoked without
parliamentary approval.
Informal reserves on public land are protected through administrative instruments by public
authorities.
Private CAR reserves are areas of private land that are managed in the long term for the
protection of CAR values under secure arrangements, including proclamation under
legislation, contractual agreements such as management agreements and covenants, and
reserves set aside under independently certified forest management systems.
Values managed by prescription are areas outside of other reserves not recorded as reserves
for the purposes of this indicator.
INDICATOR 1.1.a and INDICATOR 1.1.b provide details on how changes in forest extent are
mapped over time. Changes in reservation status are recorded within the Department of
Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment’s (DPIPWE) Tasmanian Reserve Estate
spatial layer and are recorded as at 30 June 2016. This spatial layer is a composite of public
and private reserve data across all land tenures.
Forest extent by the International Union for Nature Conservation (IUCN) categories is
summarised in Table 1.1.c.1. The IUCN categories (IUCN, 1994) are as follows:
Ia – Strict nature reserve: protected area managed mainly for science
Ib – Wilderness area: protected area managed mainly for wilderness protection
II – National park: protected area managed mainly for ecosystem conservation and
recreation
III – Natural monument: protected area managed for conservation of specific natural
features
IV – Habitat/species management area: protected area managed mainly for conservation
through management intervention
State of the forests Tasmania 2017 25
V– Protected landscape/seascape: protected areas managed mainly for landscape/seascape
conservation and recreation
VI – Managed resource protected areas: protected area managed mainly for the sustainable
use of natural ecosystems.
The reservation status of forests whose extent was mapped as at the first quarter of 2015 are
summarised in Table 1.1.c.2 and Table 1.1.c.3 below and presented in more detail in
APPENDIX 1.1: (Tables 1.1.c.1-5). To reflect the resolution of forest mapping, areas are
generally quoted to the nearest 1000 ha; areas smaller than 1000 ha are quoted to the nearest
100 ha and areas smaller than 100 ha are quoted to the nearest 10 ha. APPENDIX 1.1:
(Table 1.1.c.4) also reports the area of communities in each IBRA 4 biogeographic region
(Thackway and Creswell, 1995) to reflect their spatial distribution in Tasmania.
The CAR reserve system comprises 3.415 million hectares of land, 50.1% of the total land area
of Tasmania, and approximately half of which contains forest. Public land reserves comprise
3.264 million hectares and private land reserves 151 000 hectares.
The main contribution to the increase in reserved land (in 2012/2013) was the inclusion in the
informal reserves analysis of the Future Reserve Land (now called Future Potential Production
Forest) proclaimed under the Tasmanian Forests Agreement Act 2013. This resulted in a net
increase of 324 000 ha (in 2012/2013), taking into account overlaps with pre-existing informal
reserves. (Some of these were later formally gazetted).
Other notable changes in the area of CAR reserves since 2011 were the result of increased area
of voluntary conservation of forest on private land through the Forest Conservation Fund
Revolving Fund and Protected Areas on Private Land programs, and through covenants arising
from rejected forest practices plan applications. The total area of compensation covenants is
755 ha.
The main trends evident from the data are:
Implementation of the comprehensive, adequate and representative (CAR) reservation
framework agreed under the RFA has resulted in an extended system of public and private
terrestrial CAR reserves. Within this framework, 1 778 000 ha of forested land, or 58.2%,
of Tasmania’s native forests are now protected, up from the 1996 extent of 977 900 ha.
This represents an increase of 800 000 ha above the 1996 area, and by 265 000 ha since
2011.
As well as the major changes in public land tenure, progress has been made in
implementing protected areas on private freehold land.
Most protected forests are on public land: 70% of these are in formal reserves, of which
37% is unavailable for mining and 33% is subject to the Mineral Resources Development
Act 1995. Informal reserves and private CAR reserves account for the remaining 30% of
reserved native forests.
A total of 47 native forest communities, including all subalpine eucalypt and non-eucalypt
communities, now have more than 25% of their current areas in reserves.
Of the 50 native forest communities, 39 have at least 15% of their estimated pre-1750
extent protected in reserves. All sub-alpine eucalypt, all but one non-eucalypt, and most
wet eucalypt communities exceed this level of reservation.
Seven communities, mainly from the dry eucalypt group, have less than 7.5% of their
estimated pre-1750 extent protected in reserves. For most of these communities, the
remaining extent is primarily on unreserved private land.
State of the forests Tasmania 2017 26
Table 1.1.c.1 Area of native forest type protected by IUCN category of reserve (a) (in ‘000s)
RFA Forest Vegetation Community Group
IUCN Category
TOTAL Ia II II/Ib III IV V VI
Not Classified
(b)
Dry eucalypt 11 75 127 12 137 18 133 199 713
Wet eucalypt 1 30 137 3 46 21 55 143 436
Sub-alpine eucalypt
0 5 29 0 1 5 11 4 55
Non-eucalypt 0 12 230 10 69 23 121 109 574
TOTAL 12 122 523 26 253 67 320 455 1778
(a) Forest extent is as at the first quarter of 2015 and IUCN category is as at 30 June 2016
(b) The areas listed having a ‘Not Classified’ IUCN category are other reserves within the CAR reserve system
State of the forests Tasmania 2017 27
Table 1.1.c.2 Area of native forest type protected by reservation status (a) (in ‘000s)
RFA forest vegetation community group
RFA Reservation Status
TOTAL
Public land Private land
Dedicated formal
reserve
Other formal reserve
(b)
Informal CAR
reserve(c)
Unreserved public land(d)
Private CAR
reserves
Unreserved private land
Dry eucalypt 227 224 188 186 73 604 1503
Wet eucalypt 165 121 137 270 12 98 804
Sub-alpine eucalypt
33 17 4 3 0 6 65
Non-eucalypt
242 220 101 72 10 35 681
TOTAL 669 583 430 531 96 744 3052
(a) Forest extent is as at the first quarter of 2015 and reserve class is as at 30 June 2016
(b) Subject to the Mineral Resources Development Act 1995
(c) Includes FPPF land
(d) Includes permanent timber production zone land, Commonwealth Defence and vacant Crown lands.
Table 1.1.c.3 Change in reservation status of native forest types (hectares, in ‘000s)
RFA forest vegetation community group
Total area Total area in CAR
reserves
Proportion of existing forest now in reserves
Percentage change since
1996
Proportion of pre-1750
forest extent now in
reserves
Percentage change since
1996
Dry eucalypt 1503 713 47.4% 25.9 26.6% 14.0
Wet eucalypt 804 436 54.2% 27.9 34.6% 16.4
Sub-alpine eucalypt
65 55 84.9% 13.5 78.8% 12.9
Non-eucalypt 681 574 84.3% 32.1 71.1% 25.9
TOTAL 3052 1778 58.2% 27.7 36.9% 16.6
State of the forests Tasmania 2017 28
References
IUCN – The International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (the
World Conservation Union) (1994) Guidelines for protected area management categories.
Commission on National Parks and Protected Areas with the assistance of the World
Conservation Monitoring Centre. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.
Thackway R. and Cresswell ID. (Eds.) (1995) An Interim Biogeographic Regionalisation of
Australia for Australia: a framework for establishing the national system of reserves, Version
4.0. Australian Nature Conservation Agency, Canberra.
State of the forests Tasmania 2017 29
INDICATOR 1.1.d FRAGMENTATION OF FOREST COVER
This indicator is concerned with the size, shape and connectivity of forest. It is also concerned
with size of forest remnants and their susceptibility to exotic species invasions; correlation
between size of remnants and numbers of species and population viability; and possible
impacts on pollination, seed dispersal, wildlife migration and breeding.
Forest fragmentation was not specifically considered during the studies leading to the RFA.
Consequently there is very limited information concerning many of those attributes described
in the above paragraph that are reported on nationally and internationally.
The information presented is from the TASVEG forest extent layers 2005, 2010 and 2015
which show forest and woodland occurrences down to patches of about one hectare. This
mapping provides a good record of forest patchiness but careful interpretation is required.
All patches of forest and woodland within the TASVEG extent layers were allocated to patch
sizes consistent with those used in Australia’s State of the Forests Report 2003. The proportion
of the total area of forest was calculated for all of the patches in each of the patch size classes
for the years 2005, 2010 and 2015; the results are presented in Figure 1.1.d (i). If a large area of
forest was bisected by a major road or a river, it was counted as two patches.
The graph shows that over 45% of Tasmania's forests occur in patches larger than 50 000 ha. A
further 34% of total forest area occurs in patches between 5000 ha and 50 000 ha. The
remainder is distributed right across the range of remaining size classes below this.
Approximately 7% of Tasmania's total forest area occurs in patches less than 200ha in size.
The graph Figure 1.1.d (i) shows changes in proportions of Tasmanian forest by patch size in
2006, 2011 and 2016 and does not include plantation in forest patches. If plantations were
included, the proportions of forest in the five largest patch size classes would increase.
Figure 1.1.d (i) Proportion of total area of Tasmanian forest, by patch size 2006–16
Forests may be naturally fragmented where they occur in a matrix of non-forest communities,
as is the case in vast tracts of the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area. Many of these
smaller forest patches are likely to be forest copses occurring naturally amongst native non-
forest vegetation such as in south-west Tasmania. In parts of this area, where fire intervals
State of the forests Tasmania 2017 30
have been very long, there may also be a process of coalescing forest patches. There may be a
qualitative difference between such fragmented patches within contiguous native vegetation
and the situation where forest patches have resulted from land use, such as within a farming
landscape.
Even in some areas of the dry Midlands, open grasslands have persisted since European
settlement interspersed in some cases with dry forest and woodland. Afforestation of some of
these grasslands would not necessarily have positive biodiversity outcomes.
Over 73% of Tasmania has native vegetation cover and there is a high degree of connectivity
across the landscape. There is a higher proportion of forest in larger patches in Tasmania
(more than 72% in patches over 10 000 ha) when compared with the national picture.
State of the forests Tasmania 2017 31
INDICATOR 1.1.e AREA OF OLD-GROWTH BY FOREST TYPE BY
RESERVATION STATUS
The spread of age-classes across forest communities is a measure of ecosystem diversity, since
the age structure and species composition of a forest change as it grows older. Sustainable
forest management requires the maintenance of a full range of age-classes across the forest
estate.
The concept of ‘old-growth’ is used as a measure of structural diversity; it is defined as
ecologically mature forest where the effects of disturbances are now negligible. During the
development of the Tasmanian Regional Forest Agreement (RFA) in 1996, old-growth was
mapped by classifying forests according to the proportion of senescent crowns in each stand
and their history of disturbance by fire, harvesting and grazing.
There has been no broad-scale re-mapping of old-growth forest since 1996. In the State of the
forests Report 2002, the area of old-growth forest in 2001 was reported as the 1996 area less
the area that had been recorded as harvested since 1996. In Sustainability Indicators for
Tasmanian Forests 2001-2006, the area of old-growth forest in 2006 was estimated using the
same method.
In State of the forests Tasmania 2012, the area of old-growth forest in 2010 was reported as the
old-growth component of forest vegetation type and extent as described in Indicator 1.1.a in
2012. These data reflected changes from 1996 as identified using a combination of incomplete
harvest records and satellite remote sensing of forest change attributed to wildfire, harvesting
activity and unspecified disturbance.
For this report, the method as previously used in 2001 and 2006 reports is applied, as per the
RFA 5-yearly review indicator criteria. On publicly-managed land the area of old-growth forest
in 2016 is reported as the 1996 area less the area that had been recorded as harvested since
1996. On private land, the 2010 area was updated to reflect the area harvested to 2012. The
area of old-growth forest at December 2015 is reported as the updated 2012 area less the area
that had been recorded as harvested since 2012. This approach allows for uniform assessment
of old growth change over the five year reporting period.
The RFA recognised four components of reservation:
Formal reserves which are publicly managed land-tenures that cannot be revoked without
parliamentary approval; of these, dedicated formal reserves exclude mining
Informal reserves on public land are protected through administrative instruments by public
authorities
Private CAR reserves are areas of private land that are managed in the long term for the
protection of CAR values under secure arrangements, including proclamation under
legislation, contractual agreements such as management agreements and covenants, and
reserves set aside under independently certified forest management systems
Values managed by prescription. These areas outside of other reserves are not recorded as
reserves for the purposes of this indicator.
Reservation status is recorded as at 30 June 2016 and is based on the DPIPWE Tasmanian
Reserve Estate dataset. This spatial layer is a composite of public and private reserve data
across all land tenures.
The results as at 30 June 2016 on publicly-managed land, and 31 December 2015 on private
land, are summarised in Table 1.1.e.1 , Table 1.1.e.2 and Table 1.1.e.3 below, and presented
in more detail in APPENDIX 1.1: (Tables 1.1.e.1-3).
Within the comprehensive, adequate and representative (CAR) reservation framework
agreed under the RFA and the TCFA framework, 1 048 000 ha of old-growth forest, or
86.9% of Tasmania’s old-growth forests, are now in reserves, up from the 1996 extent of
681 900 ha or 55%. This represents an increase of 366 400 ha, or 44% of the 1996 area.
The main causes for the increase in reserved area of old-growth forest have been the
Tasmanian Community Forest Agreement (TCFA) 2005; the Tasmanian Forests Agreement
Act 2013; the gazettal of new reserves under the Nature Conservation Act 2002 in
December 2013 as part of implementing the TFA. Nine percent of all old-growth forest is
found on permanent timber production zone land, and a further 9% of all old-growth forest
is found on private freehold land.
Of the 43 old-growth forest communities mapped for the RFA, 34 have at least 60% of their
extent of old-growth reserved, and 14 have over 90% of their old-growth communities
reserved. Of the old-growth forest types, 94% of non-eucalypt old-growth forest is
reserved; 93% of sub-alpine old-growth forest; 87% of wet eucalypt old-growth forest and
78% of dry eucalypt old-growth forest. Four old-growth communities are nearly 100%
reserved – Pencil Pine with deciduous beech; Pencil Pine forest; E. subcrenulata and Tall
E. nitida.
Three forest communities have less than 30% of their extent of old-growth in reserves, all
of which are dry eucalypt forest communities, 98–100% of which is on unreserved private
freehold land. 17 000 ha of old-growth forest on private land has now been protected in
private CAR reserves.
The extent of the old-growth forest in Tasmania identified in 1996 has decreased in area by
40,000 ha (3%) over the twenty years to June 2016. However, this 40,000 ha decrease
represents more than the area of old-growth forest harvested, as in 2012 the old-growth
change mapping also included losses due to fire and other disturbance. The wet eucalypt
communities have experienced the greatest losses in old-growth forest area over this period
(9%).
The old-growth forest communities in which the biggest area decreases were recorded over
the twenty years were tall Eucalyptus delegatensis and tall E. obliqua. Twelve old-growth
communities have had 0–10 hectares cleared over the twenty years of the RFA.
Remapping of Tasmania’s coastline for the tenure/reservation layer used in 2016 led to the
removal of 200 ha of previously mapped old-growth forest communities identified in 1996.
State of the forests Tasmania 2017 33
Table 1.1.e.1 Old-growth(a) by forest type and tenure(b) (hectares, in ‘000s)
RFA Oldgrowth forest type
Conservation & Public
Reserves (c)
Permanent timber
production zone land(d)
Other publicly
managed land (e)
Private freehold
land
TOTAL % Change in area since
RFA (1996)
Dry eucalypt 240 26 53 89 407 -3.3%
Wet eucalypt 165 36 22 6 229 -8.9%
Sub-alpine eucalypt
35 1 2 2 40 -0.8%
Non-eucalypt 423 40 56 10 530 -0.7%
TOTAL 863 103 133 107 1206 -3.2%
(a) Oldgrowth forest extent as at 30th June 2016 on publicly-managed land, and 31st December 2015 on private land.
(b) Tenure as at 30th June, 2016. (c) Nature Conservation Act and Crown Lands Act. (d) Forest Management Act 2013. (e) Publicly-managed land includes land managed by Public Authorities.
Table 1.1.e.2 Old-growth(a) by forest type and reserve type(b) (hectares, in ‘000s)
Reserve Type
RFA old-growth forest type
Public land Private land
Dedicated formal
reserve
Other formal
reserve (c)
Informal Reserve
Other publicly
managed land (d)
Private CAR
reserve
Other private land
Dry eucalypt 135 104 64 15 12 77
Wet eucalypt 111 54 33 25 1 5
Sub-alpine eucalypt
24 11 2 1 0 2
Non-eucalypt 233 190 70 26 3 7
TOTAL 504 358 169 67 17 90
(a) Old-growth forest extent as at 30th June 2016 on publicly-managed land, and 31st December 2015 on private land.
(b) RFA reservation as at 30th June, 2016. (c) Subject to mining. (d) Publicly-managed land includes land managed by Public Authorities.
State of the forests Tasmania 2017 34
Table 1.1.e.3 Change in reservation(a) status of old-growth(b) by forest type (hectares, in ‘000s)
RFA old-growth forest type
Total area Total area in
CAR reserves
Proportion of existing old-growth
forest now in reserves
Increase in reservation since
1996
Dry eucalypt 407 316 77.5% 33.4%
Wet eucalypt 229 200 87.1% 35.4%
Sub-alpine eucalypt 40 37 92.7% 12.4%
Non-eucalypt 530 496 93.7% 31.0%
TOTAL 1206 1048 86.9% 32.2%
(a) RFA reservation as at 30th June, 2016. (b) Old-growth forest extent as at 30th June 2016 on publicly-managed land, and 31st December 2015 on private land.
State of the forests Tasmania 2017 35
1.2 Species Diversity
This sub-criterion monitors the knowledge base for forest-dwelling species, the status of these
species and the population levels of a range of representative species across a range of habitats
at scales relevant to forest management. The focus of reporting is on vertebrates and vascular
plants except where species are listed as rare, vulnerable, endangered or extinct.
INDICATOR 1.2.a FOREST-DWELLING SPECIES FOR WHICH ECOLOGICAL
INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE
This indicator will, over time, show improvements in knowledge and the capacity to manage
the forest-dwelling species in Tasmanian forests. The intent of this indicator is to provide
forest managers with sufficient knowledge to ensure that additional species do not reach low
population levels and require listing under threatened species legislation.
Vertebrate species and vascular plants were chosen as the indicator species because they
comprise a conspicuous and often physically dominant component of forest ecosystems.
Research that includes examples from Tasmanian forests has demonstrated that overall
biodiversity levels are closely linked to the genetic diversity of dominant species in forests
(Whitham 2006). This is because of the reliance of other species in the ecosystem on
microhabitats created by dominants as well as breakdown products on which other species
depend. In addition, a lack of information on invertebrates and lower plants makes their
current use as indicator species problematic and of limited practical use for adaptive
management.
A list of forest dwelling vertebrate fauna species is provided in Table 1.2.a.1 of APPENDIX
1.2.a: Species are classified therein according to class (e.g. fish, amphibian, and reptile) and
those species whose recovery was implemented between 2011 and 2016 are also noted. This
list was derived from the Tasmanian Government’s Natural Values Atlas (NVA), a web-based
atlas for flora and fauna records maintained by the Department of Primary Industries, Parks,
Water and Environment (DPIPWE). New location records are added to NVA from data and
incidental observations by DPIPWE staff and others, including regular updates from the Forest
and individuals. Details of forest dwelling vertebrates are summarised in Table 1.2.a.1 below.
Table 1.2.a.2 of APPENDIX 1.2.a: lists currently known forest-dwelling plant taxa. Of the
1919 vascular plant taxa indigenous to Tasmania (including subspecies and varieties), 1158
(60%) are known to be forest dwelling. These have now been tagged in NVA. This is an
increase of 124 species from 2011 as listed in State of the Forests Tasmania 2012 (1034
species). Of the 156 taxa with changed taxonomy 88 were considered to be forest dwelling
species. Reassessment of the forest dwelling status based on updated information of the
remaining taxa saw 138 taxa added to the list, and 27 removed. Data quality has improved with
the advent of the NVA and the Tasmanian Herbarium’s annual census of vascular flora species
in Tasmania, enabling accurate counts of taxa in the state for native vascular plant species.
These species are summarised in taxonomic groupings by order in Table 1.2.a.1 below.
State of the forests Tasmania 2017 36
Table 1.2.a.1 Numbers of forest dwelling taxa within each group
Group Number of taxa
Vertebrate fauna Total 139
Fish 13
Amphibians 8
Reptiles 15
Birds 69
Mammals 34
Vascular Plants Total 1158
Dicotyledons 724
Monocotyledons 335
Pteridophytes 86
Gymnosperms 13
Between 2011 (as listed in State of the forests Tasmania 2012) and 2016, one new forest-
dwelling vertebrate fauna species was identified – Antechinus vandycki (Tasman Peninsula
dusky antechinus). No forest dwelling species is believed to have become extinct in this period.
Table 1.2.a.2 summarises information known for vascular plants and different categories of
vertebrates. Even for those groups where a relatively larger amount of information is available,
there are still many species for which little is known.
Table 1.2.a.2 Number of native forest associated species and level of information regarding those species available for management decisions
Taxa Number of native forest associated species
The level of habitat, disturbance and life history information available on which management decisions are based*
None (little or no
information is available to inform management decisions)
Partial (some
information is available but some crucial information absent)
Comprehensive
(adequate to make management decisions)
Fish 13 0% 46% 54%
Amphibians 8 0% 50% 50%
Reptiles 15 0% 73% 27%
Birds 69 3% 30% 67%
Mammals 34 0% 68% 32%
Vascular Plants
1158 3% 70% 27%
* The percentage estimates are based on publications such as listing statements, note sheets and technical papers with management information included, scientific papers, and expert opinion.
The percentage of native forest associated vascular plant species with adequate information to
make management decisions has increased from 20% (2011) to 27%. The improvement is
State of the forests Tasmania 2017 37
largely due to the NVA which holds distribution information on all native vascular plant
species in Tasmania and the species profiles in the Threatened Species Link on the DPIPWE
website, as well as increased efforts to produce or revise Listing Statements or Note Sheets for
listed species. The information situation should continue to improve as data in the NVA and
Threatened Species Link increase.
Species that are “possibly threatened” have now been tagged in NVA and those with little or no
information to inform management decisions have now been reassessed and tagged in NVA.
Taxa that have little or no information available include those deemed extinct, species with
uncertain status in Tasmania, very new species, taxa that are difficult to identify, or taxa for
which observations have mostly been made at the species level rather than infraspecies
(subspecies) level. This should initiate improved information in order to assess the conservation
status of these species. Survey guidelines and habitat descriptions for all threatened flora
species are now available on the FPA website and will be completed in Threatened Species
Link, enabling better focussed surveys and management of priority species.
Table 1.2.b.1.1 Summary of changes in listing status under Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 of RFA Priority Species from 30 June 2011 to 30 June 2016
Flora Fauna
Number of species with changed TSP Act listing status 45 3
Number of species which have moved to a higher category of risk 6 2
(including number of species now determined to be extinct) (0) (0)
Number of species which have moved to a lower category of risk 2 1
(including number of species rediscovered from extinct status) (0) (0)
Number of species added to the TSP Act list 14 0
(including number of species now determined to be extinct) (1)
Number of species de-listed 23 0
(including number of species previously listed as extinct) (1)
Table 1.2.b.1.2 Summary of changes in listing status under Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act from 30 June 2011 to 30 June 2016 (not including ocean fauna or shore birds or Macquarie Island taxa)
Flora Fauna
Number of species with changed EPBC Act listing status 6 7
Number of species which have moved to a higher category of risk
(including number of species now determined to be extinct) 0 1
Number of species which have moved to a lower category of risk
(including number of species rediscovered from extinct status) 1 0
Number of species added to the EPBC Act list (including number of
species now determined to be extinct) 1 6
Number of species de-listed (including number of species previously
listed as extinct) 4 0
Table 1.2.b.1.3 Details of changes in listing status under Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 of RFA Priority Species from 30 June 2011 to 30 June 2016
Species Common name Change Reason
Flora
Agrostis aff. hiemalis alpine winter bent delisted from rare merged into a non-threatened taxon
Arygyrotegium nitidulum shining cottonleaf new listing, now vulnerable
newly confirmed as occurring in Tasmania
Arthropodium strictum chocolate lily delisted from rare improved information
Austrstipa nodosa knotty speargrass delisted from rare improved information
Brachyscome aff. radicans snow daisy delisted from rare merged into a non-threatened taxon
Brachyscome siberi var. gunnii forest daisy delisted from rare merged into a non-threatened taxon
Cassinia rugata wrinkled dollybush new listing, now endangered
newly confirmed as occurring in Tasmania
State of the forests Tasmania 2017 40
Species Common name Change Reason
Cynoglossum australe coast houndstongue delisted from rare improved information
Desmodium varians slender ticktrefoil new listing, now endangered
new taxon (part of previously listed entity)
Deyeuxia benthamiana benthams bentgrass delisted from rare merged into a non-threatened taxon
Deyeuxia densa heath bentgrass delisted from rare improved information
Euphrasia amplidens pieman eyebright new listing, now endangered
new taxon
Goodenia geniculata bent native-primrose uplisted to endangered from rare
improved information
Grevillia australis var. linearfolia narrowleaf grevillea delisted from rare varieties no longer recognised and parent species not threatened
Grevillia australis var. planifolia flatleaf grevillea delisted from rare varieties no longer recognised and parent species not threatened
Hydrocotyle laxiflora stinking pennywort uplisted to endangered from vulnerable
improved information
Hypoxis vaginata sheathing yellowstar delisted from rare improved information
Isoetopsis graminifolia grass cushion downlisted to vulnerable from endanged
improved information
Lachnagrostis scabra subsp. scabra
rough blowngrass delisted from rare improved information
Lepidium pseudotasmanicum shade peppercress delisted from rare improved information
Millotia muelleri clustered bowflower uplisted to endangered from rare
improved information
Persoonia gunnii var oblanceolata
lanceleaf geebung delisted from rare varieties no longer recognised and parent species not threatened
Pimelia spp. (Tunbridge) grassland riceflower new listing, now endangered
new taxon
Plantago gaudichaudii narrow plantain delisted from vulnerable records redetermined to belong to a non-threatened species
Poa poiformis var. ramifer island purplegrass delisted from rare improved information
Pomaderris phylicifolia narrowleaf dogwood delisted from rare component taxa reassessed in their own right
Pomaderris phylicifolia subsp. ericoides
revolute narrowleaf dogwood
new listing, now rare new taxon (part of previously listed entity)
Pomaderris phylicifolia subsp. phylicifolia
narrowleaf dogwood new listing, now rare new taxon (part of previously listed entity)
Prasophyllum anoenum dainty leek-orchid downlisted to vulnerable from endanged
improved information
State of the forests Tasmania 2017 41
Species Common name Change Reason
Pterostylis falcata sickle greenhood uplisted to endangered from rare
taxon now more narrowly defined
Pterostylis lustra small sickle greenhood new listing, now endangered
new taxon (part of previously listed entity)
Ranunculus sessiliflorus var. sessiliflorus
rockplate buttercup delisted from rare improved information
Rumex bidens mud dock uplisted to vulnerable from rare
improved information
Rytidosperma popinensis blue wallabygrass delisted from rare redetermined to be an introduced species
Scaevola albida pale fanflower uplisted to vulnerable from rare
improved information
Senecio campylacarpus bulging fireweed new listing, now vulnerable
new taxon
Senecia georgianus grey groundsel new listing, now extinct new taxon
Senecio psilocarpus swamp fireweed new listing, now endangered
new taxon
Senecio velleioides forest groundsel delisted from rare improved information
Sporobolus virginicus salt couch delisted from rare improved information
Stellaria multiflora rayless starwort delisted from rare component taxa reassessed in their own right
Stellaria multiflora subsp. nebulosa
nebulous rayless starwort new listing, now rare new taxon (part of previously listed entity)
Vittadinia burbridgeae smooth new-holland-daisy new listing, now rare new taxon (part of previously listed entity)
Westringia brevifolia var. raleighii
greater shortleaf westringia
delisted from rare varieties no longer recognised and parent species not threatened
Xerochrysum palustre swamp everlasting new listing, now vulnerable
assessment of this EPBC Act listed species undertaken
Fauna
Hypolimnus pedderensis Lake Pedder Earthworm uplisted to extinct from endangered
collated information
Migas plomleyi Plomleys Trapdoor Spider uplisted to endangered from rare
collated information
Lissotes menalcas Mount Mangana Stag Beetle
downlisted to rare from vulnerable
improved information
State of the forests Tasmania 2017 42
Table 1.2.b.2 Changes to the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act status of RFA-Priority Species
Species Common name Change Reason
Flora
Pomaderris pilifera subsp. talpicutica
Moleskin Dogwood list as Vulnerable alignment with TSPA
Argentipallium Xspiceri Spicer's Everlasting delist from Critically Endangered
alignment with TSPA (determined to be occasional hybrid)
Epacris acuminata Claspleaf Heath delist from Vulnerable alignment with TSPA
Pterostylis atriola Snug Greenhood delist from Endangered alignment with TSPA
Not active 99 (80) 116 (82) 119 (71) 133 (77) 236 (85) 141 (79)
N= 123 141 168 172 279 177
Not active – No obvious signs of nesting attempt, i.e. no recent addition of nesting material
Successful –- a chick older than three weeks of age was observed in a nest or a fledgling seen in the territory (usually with parents) or evidence (whitewash or prey remains and down) from the nest strongly indicates that fledging was successful.
The information gathered so far provides some insight into the adequacy of the management
approach applied to mitigate impacts of forest practices. The extreme sensitivity of the birds
during the early breeding season (O'Sullivan 2014) confirms the need for effective management.
While the results indicated that nest reserve design and exclusion zones were effective (Koch et
al. 2012), there was information to suggest that the management constraint period and the
timing of nest searches and nest inspections may not be sufficient to minimise disturbance to
breeding birds.
This resulted in adjustments being made in 2014 to the management recommendations which
govern forestry activities during the breeding season. The season is now recognised as starting
earlier than previously thought, and there are allowances made for variation in the timing of the
breeding season between years. Nest survey techniques have been improved to reduce risk of
errors or disturbance to nesting eagles. Overall these adjustments are anticipated to further
reduce the impacts of forestry on eagle populations, particularly in terms of allowing eagles to
re-use nests each year, resulting in a lower energetic cost of breeding and thereby an increase in
overall production of young.
An Australian National University study has established baseline information on the King
Island scrubtit population using a repeatable monitoring methodology (Webb et al. 2016). The
species was already listed as Critically Endangered, but the authors identified its population
size to be smaller than previously assumed, and suggested that there may be fewer than 50
mature individuals remaining. The study found ongoing loss, fragmentation and degradation of
State of the forests Tasmania 2017 52
this species' habitat, and also identified previously unrecognised threats in the form of acid
sulfate soils, macropod browsing and wind-throw.
A University of Tasmania PhD study supported by the Forest Practices Authority created a
habitat model for the threatened Tasmanian masked owl (Todd 2012), and identified possible
habitat features that may limit the distribution and abundance of the species. The findings were
incorporated into the Natural Values Atlas and the management recommendations delivered
through the Tasmanian forest practices system.
Amphibians
DPIPWE has developed a habitat model for two threatened frogs - the green and gold frog and
the striped marsh frog (Philips et al. 2010). The range of the green and gold frog was found to
have contracted by approximately 50% from 'pre–1995' records to 'current' (2008–2010), with
drought suggested as the main cause. It has also been suggested that the endemic Tasmanian
tree frog may decline significantly in future due to its high susceptibility to chytrid disease
(Voyles et al., 2014).
Fish
Three species of threatened fish (Arthurs paragalaxias, saddled galaxias and Clarence galaxias)
are monitored by the Inland Fisheries Service, such that gross population changes would be
detected in terms of catch per unit effort; no overall declines or increases have been detected
over the reporting period. Additionally, presence/absence surveys for the swan galaxias have
indicated the loss of the species from some lakes; this is thought to relate to the dry period,
floods and invasions of the climbing galaxias. Recently, additional populations of Arthurs
paragalaxias have been located, increasing the extent of occurrence for this species.
Invertebrates
Habitat models for keeled snail, Mt Mangana stag beetle, Simson’s stag beetle, giant velvet
worm, giant freshwater crayfish and Ptunarra brown butterfly have previously been developed
by the FPA and DPIPWE. More recently, FPA effectiveness monitoring surveys for keeled
snail across a range of forest types were undertaken and will contribute to refinement of the
species’ modelling. Additionally, some progress has also been made on reviewing the habitat
model for Giant freshwater crayfish in response to new information arising from the recent
review of the recovery plan for this species.
Population indices have previously been calculated for burrowing crayfish (three species), cave
Table 1.3.a Forest-associated threatened and priority species potentially at risk* from isolation and the loss of genetic variation, as a result of past human-induced or natural events
Group Potential High to Moderate
Risk
Potential Low Risk
Unknown Risk Total
Vertebrate fauna
Fish 5 5 0 10
Amphibians 2 0 0 2
Reptiles 0 0 2 2
Birds 7 5 0 12
Mammals 2 1 1 4
Total 16 11 3 30
Vascular Plants
Dicotyledons 242 23 0 265
Monocotyledons 71 4 0 75
Pteridophytes 20 0 0 20
Gymnosperms 2 0 0 2
Total 335 27 6 368
* A qualitative degree of risk has been estimated for vertebrate fauna and vascular plant groups (excluding orchids) that are listed as threatened in Tasmania, or are identified as RFA Priority species. A full list of species, and their risk assessment, is given in Appendix 1.3.a.
Conservation of environmental diversity, including genetic diversity in Tasmania’s forests is
principally catered for in a systematic reserve system on public land, by a voluntary private
land reserve system, and by management by prescription in production forests. A range of
measures are delivered through the Tasmanian Forest Practices Code to maintain genetic
interchange and generally manage genetic resources. These include a network of strips and
patches of unlogged forest throughout the production landscape and management prescriptions
for priority forest-associated species. These measures are implemented at multiple spatial and
temporal scales through Tasmania's forest practices system.
Notes: NA – not available. Excludes minor log products. Figures for sawlogs and veneer from private land reflect conversion from reported tonnes to cubic metres using a 1:1 conversion factor.
State of the forests Tasmania 2017 71
The key points to note are:
On public land the actual average eucalypt sawlog harvest from native forest for the period
is below the determined sustainable yield each year. In the first two years of the reporting
period the cut was less than half that sustainable yield. The average cut of pulpwood over
the period was less than a third of the 2 156 000 tonnes cut in the previous reporting period.
The cut of both sawlog and pulpwood was relatively stable over the reporting period.
On private land there is no sustainable sawlog cut determined; predicted sawlog yields are
based on historical actual production. The cut over the first 4 years of the reporting period
was very low. The average cut from private native forest in the previous reporting period
of 49 000 cubic metres was only exceeded in 2015-16. The cut of pulpwood was more
consistent, but very low in comparison to the previous reporting period. The average
pulpwood cut dropped to less than 11% of the average cut reported in the previous
reporting period (789 000 tonnes)
On public land there was no sawlog or veneer cut from eucalypt plantation. Pulpwood
yields rose over the period. The average yield exceeded that of 158 000 tonnes recorded in
the previous reporting period.
For eucalypt plantations on private land the sawlog and veneer yield rose rapidly in the last
two years to reach an average that exceeded the 9 000 cubic metres recorded in the
previous reporting period, presumably due to the export of small peeler logs rather than
sawlogs processed domestically. The pulpwood yield was very low except for the final
year. On average the pulpwood yield was lower than the 914 000 tonnes reported in the
previous period.
On private land softwood sawlog and veneer yield was consistent, except for a slight drop
in the first year.
Previous reports include projected long term woodflow from plantations. They are not reported
here. Rapid changes to the resource ownership structure and management objectives over the
five year period make long term projections highly speculative and potentially misleading.
References
Forestry Tasmania (2014). Sustainable High Quality Sawlog Supply from Tasmanian Forests.
Whiteley, S.B. (1999). Calculating the sustainable yield of Tasmania’s State forests. Tasforests
11:23–31.
State of the forests Tasmania 2017 72
INDICATOR 2.1.d ANNUAL REMOVAL OF NON-WOOD FOREST PRODUCTS
COMPARED TO THE LEVEL DETERMINED TO BE
SUSTAINABLE
This indicator recognises that forests are sources of non-wood products, including for use by
Tasmanian Aboriginal people, and that it is important to monitor the level of use and, where
practical, assess whether that level is sustainable. The values, quantities and use of non-wood
forest products are reported on in
State of the forests Tasmania 2017 73
INDICATOR 6.1.b .
While there are some statewide data for this indicator available on removal of non-wood
products, the data on sustainable yields of these products are very limited. The different levels
of available data reflect market driven responses where demand for particular non-wood
products determines what, if any, monitoring systems are developed.
There are no data available on resources collected or used for Tasmanian Aboriginal cultural
activities. One example of such collection occurred in 2014, when the bark of 3 paperbark trees
was harvested in the Circular Head region by an Tasmanian Aboriginal organisation for the
construction of a bark canoe. The group liaised with Forestry Tasmania and the Forest
Practices Authority prior to harvesting the bark. The canoe was then used as part of the Dark
Mofo winter celebration of the arts in Hobart.
The Aboriginal Access to Traditional Materials Policy (Forestry Tasmania) provides the
principles by which Forestry Tasmania manages access to materials which may be of important
significant traditional value to Tasmanian Aboriginal people. Under this policy, and in
collaboration with the Aboriginal community, Forestry Tasmania aims to:
Proactively respond to requests from Aboriginal people for access to land and
traditional materials (which may include but are not limited to: bark, basket weaving
material, wood for spears and clap sticks, ochre, and stones)
Work with Aboriginal people to identify areas within the permanent timber production
zone land that are suitable for collection of traditional materials or use
Collaborate with Aboriginal people in the collection of materials to educate Forestry
Tasmania staff about traditional materials and to ensure a safe environment for all on
permanent timber production zone land by compliance with visitor safety and
environmental procedures
Provide key contact points within Forestry Tasmania to facilitate these processes.
Honey
Honey production is dependent on seasonal conditions which determine flowering productivity.
The sustainable yield of honey production from forests has not been determined.
Tasmania’s honey industry encompassed 215 registered beekeepers in 2015-2016, of which 7
were considered commercial operators. (See also
State of the forests Tasmania 2017 74
INDICATOR 6.1.b ). The majority of honey produced is sourced from leatherwood forests in
north-west, south-west and south-east Tasmania. Most highly productive sites are located in
public forests, including the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area.
Table 2.1.d.1 reports data relating to beekeepers operating on State forest (through 2013) and
permanent timber production zone land (2014 onwards) managed by Forestry Tasmania. Table
2.1.d.2 reports data relating to beekeepers operating on land managed by PWS. The total
number of hives reported by PWS and Forestry Tasmania is 21 782, almost two thousand more
than the total number of registered beehives in Tasmania (DPIPWE: see Table 6.1.b.1 ). This is
due to hive registration not being compulsory, although this may change with imminent
changes to biosecurity legislation.
Table 2.1.d.1 Apiary sites, hives and honey production on State forest (through 2013) and permanent timber production zone land (2014 onwards)
Year Number of sites Number of hives Honey production (kg)
1996–97 343 12 607 na
1997–98 334 12 311 na
1998–99 337 12 332 na
1999–00 334 12 317 na
2000–01 322 11 212 na
2001–02 319 12 092 na
2002–03 323 12 013 698 054
2003–04 323 11 880 395 256
2004–05 325 12 534 406 121
2005–06 304 12 376 369 180
2006–07 289 12 300 670 539
2007–08 268 12 186 671 207
2008–09 303 9 583 210 061
2009–10 389 11 262 548 736
2010–11 422 10 662 214 942
2011–12 384 13 573 482 006
2012–13 421 16 477 na
2013–14 373 13 767 na
2014–15 213 7 144 na
2015–16 231 7 616 na
Source: Forestry Tasmania
na = data not available
Table 2.1.d.2 Apiary sites and hives on land managed by PWS in 2015–16
Land category Sites Hives
Reserved land 178 8270
FPPF & other Crown land 110 5896
Source: Parks and Wildlife Service, DPIPWE
State of the forests Tasmania 2017 75
Treeferns
The harvesting of treeferns (or manferns) (Dicksonia antarctica) is strictly regulated in
Tasmania under the provisions of the Forest Practices Act 1985.
Tasmanian Treefern Tags are issued by the Forest Practices Authority. These tags must remain
on the stems at all times to ensure that the origin of treeferns can be tracked to approved
harvesting areas.
Harvesting of treeferns must be conducted in accordance with a management plan for the
sustainable harvesting of treeferns that has been endorsed by the Australian and Tasmanian
governments. Under the current management plan (Forest Practices Authority 2012)
harvesting of treeferns must be covered by a certified FPP that includes a suitable prescription
for treefern harvesting. Treeferns may be harvested from native forest to be converted to
another land use, native forest to be intensively logged and regenerated, existing softwood and
hardwood plantations, and treefern plantations or nursery sites.
It is estimated that there are over 130 million individual trunked Dicksonia antarctica occurring
in Tasmania’s forests. Table 2.1.d.3 identifies the estimated numbers of treeferns by land
tenure. This figure has been derived from tree fern abundance data collected from a number of
studies around Tasmania (Chuter 2003, Kilpatrick and Moscal 1987, Neyland 1991, Pannell
1992, Turner 2003). Abundance data collected in quadrats or transect samples was used to
generate density estimates per hectare by wet forest type. Density estimates varied greatly and a
conservative approach was taken, where the lower values of range data were used.
Table 2.1.d.3 Estimated treefern numbers by land tenure, 2016 (in ‘000s)
TENURE Wet
eucalypt
forest
Other forest Estimated total number
of stems
Conservation and public reserves 24 950 40 673 65 623
Other publicly managed land 10 052 6 521 16 573
Permanent Timber Production Zone land 25 546 7 275 32 821
Private freehold land 12 932 3 250 16 182
Totals 73 480 57 719 131 199
Source: Forest Practices Authority
During the five years 2011–16, harvesting of treeferns averaged around 13 000 stems per year,
a very low proportion of the estimated stems occurring in Tasmania (based on number of tree
fern tags issued) (Table 2.1.d.4). The annual harvest varied over this period, but over the last
four years there appears to be relatively steady demand for tree fern tags. These treeferns were
salvaged from native forest converted to another land use such as forest plantations or
agriculture, or intensively logged and regenerated native forest.
State of the forests Tasmania 2017 76
Table 2.1.d.4 Number of Treefern tags issued annually between 2002 and 2016
Financial year Number treefern tags issued
2002–03 64 182
2003–04 54 886
2004–05 61 368
2005–06 45 131
2006–07 43 843
2007–08 35 361
2008–09 17 529
2009–10 19 905
2010–11 10 729
2011–12 22 177
2012–13 8 572
2013–14 8 982
2014–15 11 014
2015–16 13 086
Source: Forest Practices Authority
Treeferns rapidly recolonise coupes disturbed by harvesting. Spores are dispersed from mature
treeferns retained in streamside reserves or wildlife corridors. Regenerating treeferns have a
height growth rate of 3.5–5.0 cm per year indicating that treeferns can reach maturity (able to
produce spores) and also a harvestable size if required in less than 30 years (Forest Practices
Authority 2012). The available treefern resource combined with treefern recolonisation and
growth rate knowledge indicates that current harvest levels are well within sustainable yields.
Native Seed and Flora Collection
Seeds are collected by private collectors and Forestry Tasmania principally for their own use in
native forest regeneration, propagating nursery stock and the establishment of plantations.
Seed collection continues to focus on commercially important species, predominantly trees for
forest plantations on public and private land and to a lesser extent to service tree planting
activities of organizations such as Landcare and Greening Australia.
Seed collected on private land for commercial horticultural use is not regulated and is likely to
be limited in extent. Commercial seed collectors harvesting from public land are small in
number and are regulated by permits administered by the relevant public land management
agency.
Data are available for seed collection from Forestry Tasmania which provides information on
seed weight, origins, site details and germination capacity as standard practice. The annual
quantity of seed collected by Forestry Tasmania is shown in Table 2.1.d.5.
State of the forests Tasmania 2017 77
Table 2.1.d.5 Annual collection of native tree seed by Forestry Tasmania
Year Raw seed (kg)
1996–97 2012
1997–98 1370
1998–99 564
1999–00 1278
2000–01 1712
2001–02 2320
2002–03 4765
2003–04 3301
2004–05 3408
2005–06 3367
2006–07 4018
2007–08 3299
2008–09 5787
2009–10 7897
2010–11 4089
2011–12 1406
2012–13 402
2013–14 352
2014–15 710
2015–16 1066
Source: Forestry Tasmania
One emerging issue for forest managers is the harvesting of pepper berry (Tasmannia
lanceolata) for commercial purposes. Such harvesting is regulated on Crown Land.
Anecdotally, such collection occurs mainly on permanent timber production zone land and
private land, and there is believed to have been illegal harvesting of pepper berry on former
Crown land areas (M. Visoiu, DPIPWE, pers comm.).
Wildlife Harvesting
Brushtail possums, and to a lesser extent wallabies and pademelons, are primarily forest and
woodland species whose densities are highest where this habitat is adjacent to agricultural land
or disturbed forest.
No estimate has been made of the sustainable yield for wallabies specifically from forested
areas, although a sustainable yield formula under a commercial harvest plan is calculated
annually based on spotlight surveys.
There have been fluctuating markets for skins and meat over the last 20 years. The fluctuations
in annual commercial harvest are shown in Table 2.1.d.6 and Table 2.1.d.7.
In addition to targeted markets, there has been control of these species where browsing of
eucalypt seedlings and agricultural crops has been a problem.
Since 1985, the DPIPWE has been monitoring population levels of the brushtail possum,
Bennetts wallaby and the Tasmanian pademelon. These results are reported in INDICATOR
1.2.c and Figure 1.2.c.1 . Hunting or control has not impacted on populations levels of
State of the forests Tasmania 2017 78
wallabies, pademelons or brushtail possums across Tasmania indicating that current harvesting
of these species is within sustainable levels.
Table 2.1.d.6 Annual harvest of brushtail possums
Year Commercial permits Est. commercial harvest
1996 59 13 917
1997 35 12 364
1998 176 10 596
1999 38 11 635
2000 42 55 200
2001 22 4900
2002 40 1100
2003 17 1700
2004 47 120
2005 45 5672
2005–06 13 14 497
2006–07 14 4832
2007–08 4 1558
2008–09 7 4680
2009–10 6 1375
2010–11 12 4379
2011–12 11 4596
2012–13 10 5978
2013–14 31 13 387
2014–15 35 33 867
2015–16 75 32 945
Source: Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment
State of the forests Tasmania 2017 79
Table 2.1.d.7 Annual harvest of wallaby meat.
Year Commercial licences sold
Game meat produced (kg)
Non-commercial shooting*
1996 113 69 617 4956
1997 80 58 055 5926
1998 61 50 974 4989
1999 50 67 999 4646
2000 44 61 642 4392
2001 45 NA 4492
2002 49 NA 4769
2003 46 8784 4391
2004 60 2630 4518
2005 52 19 045 4531
2006 27 20 920 5840
2007 33 23 696 6499
2008 28 20 746 6534
2009 29 22 148 6705
2010 32 27 670 6835
2011 31 19 452 6685
2012 33 NA 7236
2013 38 NA 7196
2014 35 NA 7429
2015 45 NA 7480
2016 38 NA 7583
* Number of non-commercial game licences sold
^Data no longer collected
Source: Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment
Dry eucalypt forests and woodlands are important to fallow deer for shelter, fawning and
resting, though wet forests and rainforests are too dense to be utilised by them. The number of
game licences sold during the period continues to increase, while the number of male deer
taken has plateaued. This is likely to reflect the availability of hunting opportunity for trophy
males rather than any population limitations. Take of male and female fallow deer for crop
protection purposes has risen significantly in recent years.
The annual harvest of deer (from game licenses only) is given below in Table 2.1.d.8.
State of the forests Tasmania 2017 80
Table 2.1.d.8 Annual harvest of deer from game licences only
Year Deer licences Estimated male deer taken under game
licence (not Crop Protection permits)
1996 2672 580
1997 2832 600
1998 2862 592
1999 2774 544
2000 2737 760
2001 2800 877
2002 2845 946
2003 2937 1000
2004 3135 1153
2005 3228 1261
2006 3599 1631
2007 3869 1591
2008 3849 1479
2009 4088 1286
2010 4151 1307
2011 4163 1317
2012 4325 1652
2013 4452 1444
2014 4607 1559
2015 4792 1996
2016 5165 1945
Source: Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment
References
Forest Practices Authority (2012) Treefern management plan for harvesting, transporting or
trading of Dicksonia antarctica in Tasmania. Forestry Practices Authority, Hobart
Chuter, A (2003) Regeneration of Dicksonia antarctica after logging. Unpublished Honours
Thesis, University of Tasmania, Hobart.
Kirkpatrick J and Moscal A (1987) Conservation Status of the Vegetation and Flora of the
Lemonthyme Area, Tasmania – A report to the Australian Heritage Commission, University of
Tasmania, Hobart.
Neyland, MG (1986) Conservation and Management of Tree ferns in Tasmania. Wildlife
Division Technical Report 86/1. National Parks and Wildlife Service Tasmania.
Pannell JR (1992) Swamp forests of Tasmania. Forestry Commission, Tasmania.
Turner, PAM (2003) The ecology and conservation of bryophytes in Tasmanian wet eucalypt
forest. PhD thesis, University of Tasmania, Hobart.
State of the forests Tasmania 2017 81
INDICATOR 2.1.e THE AREA OF NATIVE FOREST HARVESTED AND THE
PROPORTION OF THAT EFFECTIVELY REGENERATED,
AND THE AREA OF PLANTATION CLEARFELLED AND THE
PROPORTION OF THAT EFFECTIVELY RE- ESTABLISHED
This indicator reports on the extent of native forest harvested and the success of re-establishing
regeneration. It also compares the area of plantations clearfelled with the area effectively
replanted, and gives an indication of the success of the planting effort.
Effective regeneration of harvested native forest is required for all forest unless permanent
conversion to another land use is approved. In native forests, the Forest Practices Code 2015
(the Code) prescribes that sowing and planting mixtures must approximate the natural
composition of the canopy trees of the harvested forest. The Code requires regeneration
surveys to be conducted one year after clearfelling or two years after partial harvesting. Where
surveys show survival is less than the required stocking standard, remedial treatments must be
considered.
Plantations are not necessarily re-established following clearfelling. Environmental (eg
inappropriately located on steep slopes or unstable soils), cultural (eg urban expansion) or
economic (eg distance to mills, market) factors may influence whether a plantation is re-
established or an alternative land use and/or tree crop is established. The reason for conversion
is not reported. In Tasmania, all of the major plantation growers have internal management
systems that provide for assessment of regeneration/re-establishment stocking levels and the
likelihood of success of remedial treatment.
All forestry operations on public and private land are undertaken under a forest practices plan.
Under the Forest Practices Act 1985, a compliance report must be lodged upon completion of
the operations under the plan indicating whether regeneration or re-establishment has occurred
in accordance with the Forest Practices Code and forest practices plan.
The Forest Practices Authority reports annually on the extent of planned forest operations
across all tenures. The figures provided, however do not reflect actual completed ha as there is
often a reduction in area due to operational reasons. Table 2.1.e.1 shows the area (ha) of native
forest planned and approved for clearfell harvesting and planned for reforestation, conversion
or non-forest land use since 1999–2000. Harvesting of native forest for conversion to
plantation on State forest ceased on 1 June 2007.
Table 2.1.e.1 Total area of native forest (public and private) planned for clearfell harvesting and proposed for regeneration, conversion to plantations or non-forest land use 1999–2000 to 2015–16 (hectares)
Native Forests
Reporting Year
Clearfelled followed by regeneration by seeding
Clearfelled followed by plantation
Clearfelled followed by non-forest land use*
1999–2000 4 500 13 400 1 910
2000–01 4 650 11 810 1 620
2001–02 3 750 7 660 1 620
2002–03 6 180 5 720 2 700
2003–04 5 080 7 300 1 970
2004–05 4 590 6 460 1 540
2005–06 3 100 12 510 850
State of the forests Tasmania 2017 82
2006–07 3 770 11 950 1 730
2007–08 5 030 5 660 2 300
2008–09 4 910 7 770 1 920
2009–10 4 610 5 220 1 350
2010–11 4 630 230 2 130
2011–12 3076 107 545
2012–13 2325 0 729
2013–14 3541 8 2281
2014–15 2637 74 2078
2015–16 1905 40 480
*Non-forest land use is minor on State forest and restricted to infrastructure requirements such as roads, power lines and dams.
Plantations clearfelled and followed by native forest re-establishment reflects the reforestation
of streamside reserves with native species in plantations originally established prior to the
introduction of the Forest Practices Code in 1987.
Table 2.1.e.2 provides information on plantations planned for re-establishment, reforestation
with natives, or conversion to non-forest land use since 1999–2000.
The area of plantation planned for harvesting declined from a high in 2007–08, as a result of
tightening market conditions and collapse of Gunns Ltd including closure of its woodchip
facilities at Triabunna, Hampshire, Burnie and Bell Bay. Increased harvesting was again
reported in 2013–14 as the industry recovered with new Timber Industry Management
Organisations (TIMOs) purchasing assets of previously collapsed MIS companies. For
example New Forests purchased forests previously owned by Gunns Ltd and set up Forico Pty
Ltd to manage these assets, including the woodchip export facilities at Hampshire and Bell Bay,
Forest Enterprises Australia, and Neville Smith Timbers purchased Smartfibre which owns an
export woodchip facility at Bell Bay.
Table 2.1.e.2 Total planned area of plantation forest (public and private) harvested and proposed for re-establishment or converted to non-forest land use 1999–2000 to 2015–16 (hectares)
Reporting Year
Plantation clearfelled followed by plantation
re-establishment
Plantation clearfelled followed by conversion to
non-forest use*
Plantation clearfelled followed by native
forest re-establishment**
1999–00 3 600 50
2000–01 5 230 90
2001–02 5 350 360
2002–03 7 740 130
2003–04 8 250 420
2004–05 6 550 220
2005–06 7 590 510
2006–07 9 450 260
2007–08 9 760 610
2008–09 7 360 400 110
2009–10 7 940 280 240
State of the forests Tasmania 2017 83
2010–11 6 370 340 120
2011–12 3691 350 162
2012–13 3827 550 24
2013–14 7515 1496 209
2014–15 6847 2313 41
2015–16 11879 3394 64
*Non-forest land use is minor on State forest/permanent timber production zone land and restricted to infrastructure requirements such as roads, power lines and dams – area not reported.
**Largely from native streamside reserves re-established in pine plantations which were established prior to the Forest Practices Code.
Forestry Tasmania reports annually on the level of regeneration achieved for all harvested
native forest operations on permanent timber production zone land. Regeneration success of
eucalypt coupes is reported three years after harvesting operations. Regeneration of rainforest,
blackwood swamp and Huon pine coupes is reported at five years after harvesting. Table
2.1.e.3 shows that Forestry Tasmania has consistently exceeded its regeneration success target
of 85% of the regenerated area meeting prescribed stocking standards. Stocking standards
specify the minimum levels of growing stock to be retained or regenerated in order to maintain
productive native forest after harvesting operations. The required stocking standard is
determined by the forest type being regenerated and is based on the number and spatial
distribution of acceptable seedlings, saplings or trees that occur within the forest area being
assessed. Areas that don’t meet the stocking standard are assessed to determine if they are
ecologically stocked, meaning that that the stocking is sufficient to maintain the forest
community even though its wood productivity may be low. Very few areas fail to meet
ecological stocking, especially after remedial treatments are applied.
Table 2.1.e.3 Percentage of regenerated native forest meeting the stocking standard on State forest (1998–2013) and Permanent Timber Production Zone (2014–2016) lands
Reporting year Regeneration year eucalypt clearfell and
partial logging
Regeneration year
rainforest/blackwood swamp
Total area treated (ha)
Total area which achieved standard (ha)
% Area meeting standard
1998–99 1995–96 1993–94 4006 3815 95
1999–00 1996–97 1994–95 5466 5184 95
2000–01 1997–98 1995–96 4145 4011 97
2001–02 1998–99 1996–97 4808 4568 95
2002–03 1999–00 1997–98 4148 3837 93
2003–04 2000–01 1998–99 5526 5141 93
2004–05 2001–02 1999–00 6569 6526 99
2005–06 2002–03 2000–01 7226 6942 96
2006–07 2003–04 2001–02 9445 9244 98
2007–08 2004–05 2002–03 10 207 10 010 98
2008–09 2005–06 2003–04 7522 7002 93
2009–10 2006–07 2004–05 6882 6220 90
2010–11 2007–08 2005–06 7820 6888 88
State of the forests Tasmania 2017 84
2011–12 2008–09 2006–07 9377 9002 96
2012–13 2009–10 2007–08 9190 8639 94
2013–14 2010–11 2008–09 7414 7192 97
2014–15 2011–12 2009–10 4580 3985 87
2015–16 2012–13 2010–11 2994 2994 100
In previous reporting periods, Forestry Tasmania had reported annually on the level of
establishment success achieved for all plantation establishment operations on State forest.
Establishment success of eucalypt plantations was reported two years after planting operations.
On private land data relating to effective stocking of plantations one year after planting were
not available.
For the reporting period 2011-16 establishment success data is not available for private land or
for public forests. On permanent timber production zone land, the areas being established are
extremely small, and environmental management processes are in place to ensure that stocking
standards are met. Similarly, the majority of plantations on private land are established and
managed by forest management companies, either on their own freehold land or under a joint
venture or leasing arrangement. Such private property is therefore subject to the high standards
of forest management consistent with the companies’ internal procedures and systems.
An assessment of re-establishment success is undertaken through the Forest Practices
Authority’s compliance reporting and the independent assessment process (as described in
INDICATOR 7.1.b).
Certificates of compliance do not specify regeneration or re-establishment rates achieved but
do indicate the level of compliance with the objective specified within a forest practices plan.
The FPA’s annual independent assessment process assesses whether an effective stocking
standard is likely to be achieved following clearfelling in plantations and native forests which
are to be re-established or regenerated.
Table 2.1.e.4 Forest Practices Authority’s annual assessment performance rating for regeneration in native forest operations 2003–04 to 2015–16
Total for all tenures
Private industrial
Private independent
State forest
2003–04 3.4 3.3 4.0 3.5
2004–05 3.0 2.6 2.9 3.4
2005–06 3.6 3.3 3.5 3.8
2006–07 3.4 3.4 2.4 3.7
2007–08 3.5 3.4 3.0 3.8
2008–09 3.5 3.5 3.1 3.7
2009–10 3.3 3.4 3.0 3.5
2010–11 3.6 3.6 3.5 3.6
2011–12 3.5 3.7 3.0 4.0
2012–13 3.3 4.0 2.5 3.8
2013–14 3.2 4.0 2.8 3.4
Average 3.4 3.5 3.0 3.6
State of the forests Tasmania 2017 85
New rating system: acceptable & maximum rating is ‘3’
2014–15 2.7 3.0 1.7 3.0
2015–16 2.8 - 3.0 2.3
From 2003–04 the performance rating system stipulated that a minimal compliance rating of
‘three’ was considered acceptable, with a maximum possible rating of ‘four’). In 2014–15 the
performance rating system was changed so that the acceptable rating of ‘three’ was also the
maximum rating. Table 2.1.e.4 and
State of the forests Tasmania 2017 86
Table 2.1.e.5 show the results all tenures from 2003–04 to 2015–16 for regeneration success of
native forest and establishment success of plantations.
State of the forests Tasmania 2017 87
Table 2.1.e.5 Forest Practices Authority’s annual assessment performance rating for re-establishment in plantation operations 2003–04 to 2015–16
Total for all tenures
Private industrial
Private independent
State forest
2003–04 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.9
2004–05 3.3 3.3 3.6 3.1
2005–06 3.8 3.9 4.0 3.6
2006–07 3.7 3.8 2.5 3.8
2007–08 3.7 3.6 4.0 3.8
2008–09 3.4 3.3 3.3 4.0
2009–10 3.4 3.4 3.0 3.9
2010–11 3.4 3.5 2.3 4.0
2011–12 3.3 3.3 3.5 3.0
2012–13 3.8 3.7 4.0 4.0
2013–14 4.0 4.0 4.0 NA
Average 3.6 3.6 3.5 3.7
New rating system: acceptable & maximum rating is ‘3’
surveillance methods are used to detect health problems in high-value plantations on permanent
timber production zone land.
In reserved forests, the intensity of pest and disease management is low, there is no formal
surveillance and most pests and pathogens are not managed. The exceptions are some exotic
pests, pathogens and weeds that have become established in Tasmania and threaten the
conservation values of reserves. The ‘Keeping it Clean’ hygiene guidelines have been
developed and introduced to manage the spread of aquatic pests and pathogens that threaten the
conservation values of forest ecosystems. While there is no surveillance done in reserves,
several focused monitoring programs have been established, including: myrtle wilt rate of
spread plots (established in the 1980s), montane conifer climate change monitoring plots
(established in 2010–11), and environmental monitoring of waterways for Phytophthora
susceptible species (pilot project done in 2009–10).
Limiting the establishment of additional exotic pests and pathogens through effective
biosecurity and quarantine measures is an ongoing priority. Plant Health Australia (2013) has
recently updated the Plantation Forest Biosecurity Plan, which integrates with the national plant
biosecurity system, particularly PlantPlan, the generic incursion management plan for exotic
plant pests and pathogens. Furthermore, the recently-released Biosecurity Manual for the
Plantation Timber Industry (Plant Health Australia, 2015) provides detailed descriptions of the
high priority exotic pests and diseases that threaten the forest industry. The Tasmanian
State of the forests Tasmania 2017 89
Biosecurity Strategy 2013–2017 (DPIPWE 2012) provides the system and structures for
formulating biosecurity policy and delivering it operationally: it is particularly important for
capturing the additional biosecurity benefit provided by Bass Strait. In recent years screening
for exotic bark beetles has been incorporated in to the Sirex static trapping program in softwood
plantations on permanent timber production zone land. Additionally spot checks are now
performed for a limited number of target exotics with distinctive symptoms as part of routine
pine health surveillance.
Where chemicals are used to control pests and diseases the manufacturer’s guidelines for use
are strictly followed, as well as any additional requirements imposed by the Australian
Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA). Chemicals are applied both on the
ground and by aerial spraying. The implementation of aerial spraying guidelines determines
when spraying can be carried out and minimises the chance of spray drift into streams or onto
neighbours properties. Aerial spray buffers are currently being reviewed in light of changes to
APVMA pesticide labelling.
Main health problems affecting Eucalyptus plantations
A detailed summary of the factors affecting the health of plantations on State forest/permanent
timber production zone land each year from 2011–12 to 2015–16 is provided in APPENDIX
3.1.a: . Expansion of the Eucalyptus plantation estate in Tasmania (predominantly E. nitens)
continued until 2011. Planting rates have slowed down markedly since that time with only 1456
ha being planted between 2012 and 2016. Browsing, predominantly by native mammalian
herbivores (brushtail possum, Tasmanian pademelon and Bennetts wallaby) remains the major
threat during the establishment phase. All the plantations established for solid wood production
received protection from browsing management.
The use of the poison 1080 on permanent timber production zone land was phased out over 10
years ago and management now relies on shooting and trapping, often in combination with
seedling stockings. Results from forest health surveillance of eucalypt plantations on
permanent timber production zone land over the last five years detected only very small,
localised areas of stunting or reduced stocking due to mammal browsing and some widespread
defoliation of recently planted seedlings in a single coupe.
The chrysomelids, Paropsisterna bimaculata and P. agricola, remained the major insect
defoliators affecting plantations post-establishment. They are the only insect pests that are
routinely managed. This involves an integrated pest management (IPM) strategy based on
regular monitoring during summer to detect damaging (above threshold) populations that may
need controlling. There has been ongoing adaptive adjustment to the IPM which has moved to
a much more targeted and risk-based approach. Monitoring was greatly reduced or excluded
from low-risk areas of the estate while the threshold was adjusted to help protect areas of
chronic damage.
The insecticide alpha-cypermethrin is routinely used in aerial spray operations to control
above-threshold populations. Substitution of alpha-cypermethrin with spinosad, a more
environmentally-friendly insecticide, has been largely unsuccessful because of operational
difficulties and lower cost-effectiveness. The summer of 2012–2013 saw an extremely high
level of beetle activity and the appearance of Paropsisterna selmani as a major defoliating pest.
Subsequent research has shown that P. selmani develops more quickly than P. bimaculata and
commences egg laying earlier. The full consequences of these differences are still to be
understood. These large populations saw a substantial increase in the area across which control
operations needed to be conducted (Table 3.1.a.1). The following year saw more normal leaf
beetle populations while 2014–2015 saw a crash in numbers, particularly across the north of the
State of the forests Tasmania 2017 90
state, with a consequent reduction in the area of plantation over threshold and the necessity for
chemical control. Low populations were maintained during 2015–2016 with the only control
operations being conducted in the south of the state.
Table 3.1.a.1 Summary of the annual chrysomelid leaf beetle integrated pest management (IPM) program on State forest for the five years between 2011–12 to 2015–16 (numbers in parentheses are areas as a percentage of the total area (in hectares) that was monitored)
2011–12 2012–13 2013–14 2014–15 2015–16
Area monitored 19 333 14 530 13 454 11 288 9291
Area of plantations over-threshold1
(%)
3 525
(18)
6 137
(42)
1 543
(12)
695
(6)
779
(8)
Area of plantations over-threshold
that were sprayed
(%)
2 361
(12)
4 741
(33)
887
(10)
409
(4)
558
(8)
1. Monitored populations of leaf beetle eggs and larvae that exceed economic injury levels.
No other insect pest of eucalypt plantations requires routine management. The eucalypt weevil,
Gonipterus scutellatus, caused localised damage in some southern plantations but this was
never extensive or severe enough to warrant control operations. Populations of autumn gum
moth (Mnesampela privata), were restricted to the north-west of the state and generally only
caused moderate damage; the exception being 18 ha of severe damage in a pulp plantation.
Gum leaf skeletoniser (Uraba lugens) was widespread but damage remained limited to edge
trees, usually adjacent to native forest.
Drought stresses have manifested in patchy and ongoing mortality in a number of mid-rotation
plantations in the north of the state. Such environmental stresses render trees susceptible to a
range of insects and pathogens for a considerable period of time. Between 2012 and 2016 some
430 ha were affected by this syndrome which involved borer attack (buprestids and
cerambycids) as well as bark infection by Holocryphia eucalypti (Endothia gyrosa) and
root/collar rot from Armillaria.
With the aging of the plantation estate, the soil-borne pathogen, Phytophthora cinnamomi, has
not been recorded as the primary causal agent for any significant mortality over the last five
years.
The fungal leaf pathogens Teratosphaeria spp. (formerly Mycosphaerella) and Kirramyces
eucalypti can occasionally cause severe defoliation and shoot death in eucalypt plantations as
the result of epidemics that develop when moist, humid conditions coincide with periods of
active growth. Conditions for epidemic leaf disease were widespread across northern and
eastern Tasmania during the 2009–10 and 2010–11 seasons.
The 2010–11 season was particularly favourable for fungal leaf disease. 2000 ha of
predominantly E. nitens plantations on permanent timber production zone land suffered
defoliation at levels likely to cause significant growth reductions. The combination of fungal
defoliation, leaf beetle damage, cold, exposure and wind damage lead to large areas of chronic
poor crown density in the north-east highlands with a consequent severe impact on wood
production. In response adaptive management was implemented using data collected during
forest health surveillance to continually improve and strategically deploy the IPM program.
Adjusted monitoring techniques and thresholds were aimed at protecting these vulnerable
crowns from any further leaf beetle damage and giving them the best chance of recovery. This
State of the forests Tasmania 2017 91
proved to be successful and was assisted by the general decrease in overall leaf beetle
populations.
In 2012 over 2700 ha of the north-east highlands were mapped as having chronically thin
crowns largely due to MLD (Mycosphaerella leaf disease); by 2015 this had fallen to only 164
ha. A similar syndrome developed in a localised region further to the east following a very wet
summer and an outbreak of defoliating fungal pathogens in 2014–15, which currently affects
about 226 ha.
Myrtle rust (Puccinia psidii) became established in northern New South Wales in autumn 2010.
It was identified as being present in Tasmania in February 2015. Both E. globulus and E. nitens
are known to be susceptible to the rust and it is likely that some members of the Myrtaceae in
Tasmania’s native forests will also be susceptible. While climatic conditions in Tasmania are
not as suitable for epidemic disease as the more northerly states, the pathogen is still considered
to pose a threat in lowland forests along northern Tasmania, particularly during years with wet
summers like that experienced in 2010–11. In response the original incursion Forestry
Tasmania incorporated myrtle rust monitoring in to browsing damage surveys in both
plantations and native forest regeneration as well as including surveys in young eucalypt
plantations as part of the forest health program. Symptoms of the disease have not been
detected in either plantations or native forest regeneration (see also INDICATOR 1.3.a).
In early 2014 a suite of symptoms started appearing in mid-rotation E. globulus plantations in
the north-west of the state. Affected trees had a distinct dark-reddish discolouration, extensive
kino bleeding and commonly had swellings and cracks in the bark (Figure 3.1.a.1). Routine
health surveillance showed this syndrome was widespread in the north-west but was also
observed in the north-east where E. globulus is generally planted on poorer sites. The colouring
of affected trees lead to this being termed “ginger tree syndrome”. Investigation showed large
kino filled pockets which were contained inside the annulus of a single new growth ring
(Figure 3.1.a.2). The rupture of these pockets is what caused the copious resin bleeding and
ginger colouration of affected stems. There were no insect pests or diseases associated with
these defects.
Kino pockets coincided with the 2012–13 growing season, which was characterised by
unusually dry and hot weather across the north of the state (Figure 3.1.a.3 ). Such severe
physiological stresses are known to be capable of causing trauma to the cambium and
triggering the formation of kino veins and pockets (Eyles and Mohammed 2003). Furthermore,
affected trees that were examined had evidence of similar, though less severe, damage in older
wood. Such trees are unsuitable for saw or veneer logs. Follow-up surveys in 2015 showed
only a small percentage of affected trees died (8% of affected trees with external symptoms but
this only represented 1.3% of all assessed plantation trees) and that external symptoms
disappeared as bark was sloughed off (Forestry Tasmania, internal data). This syndrome is also
suspected to be responsible for similar symptoms occurring in native eucalypts on farmland and
in private native forest, although little damage has been observed in native forests on
permanent timber production zone land. Eucalyptus viminalis appears to have been particularly
adversely affected and significant mortality has been observed around the state.
State of the forests Tasmania 2017 92
Figure 3.1.a.1 Symptoms associated with “ginger tree syndrome” including general stem discolouration, swellings, cracks and extensive kino bleeding.
Figure 3.1.a.2 Large kino-filled pocket contained inside the annulus of a single new growth ring (left) and kino veins in older wood indicating a general predisposition to kino vein formation in some E. globulus trees (right).
State of the forests Tasmania 2017 93
Figure 3.1.a.3 Rainfall (top) and temperature (bottom) conditions experienced in Tasmania during the 2012–13 growing season which coincided with the formation of kino filled pockets in susceptible E. globulus mid-rotation plantation trees.
State of the forests Tasmania 2017 94
The extensive wildfires across the north-west of the state in the summer of 2015–16 had a large
impact on the eucalypt plantation estate. Around 3286 ha were affected to some extent. Of this
area 1095 ha were assessed as minimally burnt (<10%), 921 ha as burnt in patches (10–75%)
and 1270 ha as completely burnt (>75%) (Forestry Tasmania, internal data).
Main health problems affecting Pinus plantations
Needle cast diseases, such as spring needle cast (SNC) and Dothistroma, and bark stripping by
wallabies remains the major problem affecting the pine plantation estate.
Defoliation and needle discolouration from SNC and Dothistroma have been fairly limited over
the last three years. However, in 2012 and 2013 these diseases caused significant foliar
discolouration, defoliation and poor crown density across 1143 and 627 ha respectively.
Culling by shooting or trapping is the only means of management currently available to
manage bark stripping. Research has shown bark stripping is associated with an annual peak of
bark sugar levels in pines during a time of the year when preferred herbage is scarce. The area
affected by reportable levels of wallaby damage remains fairly consistent from year to year at
between 1000 and 1500 ha. This primarily consists of sub-lethal bark stripping, but also
includes some shoot browsing and ring-barking mortality that leads to reduced stocking in very
young plantations. Top death in mid-rotation plantations caused by possum ringbarking has
generally been restricted in distribution over the last five years.
Sirex wood wasp is the main insect threat to pine plantations in Tasmania and an annual static
trapping program is conducted in at-risk plantations on permanent timber production zone land
in northern Tasmania. Low populations were generally maintained over the last five years and
no significant mortality was reported. The Sirex parasitoid, Ibalia leucospoides, was usually
present, although none were detected in 2015–16. Despite overall low populations, the level of
Sirex activity warranted the inoculation of a number of plantations with the nematode
Beddingia siricidicola, which is a very effective biological control agent..
The Monterey pine aphid (Essigella californica) remains restricted to plantations in southern
Tasmania; no activity has been observed on permanent timber production zone land in the
north of the state. The black pine bark beetle Hylastes ater was detected, causing scattered
mortality in a single young plantation in the central north of the state in 2016. There were no
other insect problems of note reported. Tasmania continues to remain free of the five-spined
bark beetle (Ips grandicollis). Modelling suggests that Tasmania’s climate is sub-optimal for
this pest.
Top death due to Diplodia pini infection tends to be closely associated with dry conditions.
Peaks in infection levels were observed in 2013 and 2016, primarily in the drier areas in the
central north and north-east of the state, which coincided with severe rainfall deficiencies over
the preceding summers.
Extensive, copious resin bleeding was observed across more than 350 ha in an east coast
plantation in 2015 (Figure 3.1.a.4 ). Bleeding was more prominent in trees older than 10 years,
although it could be seen on larger trees as young as 8 years. Extensive resin bleeding in P.
radiata can be a sign of the formation of resin pockets due to damage to the developing xylem
in the cambial region. The formation of such defects has been consistently associated with
environmental conditions such as water stress and drought (Dave et al. 2011, Ottenschlaeger et
al. 2012) and may be similar to the ginger tree syndrome in eucalypts. The previous 18 months
on the north-east had seen the lowest rainfall on record. Symptoms had largely abated by 2016
and no tree mortality was observed (Fig. 3.1.a.5).
State of the forests Tasmania 2017 95
Dry conditions were also responsible for substantial areas of transplant failure in 2013 (269 ha)
and 2014 (331 ha).
Significant windthrow and stem breakage due to storm events tended to be patchy and localised
with around 165 ha being affected over the five years to 2016.
Figure 3.1.a.4 Copious resin bleeding of P. radiata in a north-eastern coastal plantation and rainfall conditions across Tasmania for the preceding 18 months.
a) Figures rounded to nearest 10/100/1000 hectares. b) Fire extent is for forested (as mapped in vegetation communities) land only. c) Tenure for all fire seasons as at 30th June 2016. d) Vegetation mapping for all seasons as at first quarter of 2015. e) Totals are rounded sums of actual totals.
The majority of the planned burns on permanent timber production zone land in the above table
reduced post-logging fuel loads and created a suitable seed bed for the regeneration of native
forest. The remainder of the planned burns were conducted for strategic fuel management
purposes.
Pre-plantation establishment burning on permanent timber production zone land is no longer
undertaken due to FT’s decision in 2006 to cease the conversion of native forest to plantation.
A coordinated smoke management strategy (CSMS) was established in 2008 to minimise the
risk of high concentrations of smoke within individual airsheds. Under the CSMS, restrictions
may be imposed upon the forest industry, PWS, TFS or other participating members of the
CSMS in order to limit or ban burning on days when weather forecasts predict poor smoke
dispersal.
State of the forests Tasmania 2017 101
Unplanned fires
Unplanned fires are defined as those started naturally or accidentally that are not in accordance
with planned fire management prescriptions. Usual causes of such fires include: lightning strike;
escaped campfires or BBQs; fires accidentally started as a result of sparks from equipment or
machinery; fires which are deliberately lit without the necessary permits or authority (and those
lit with malicious intent); and escaped planned burns.
Table 3.1.b.2 Area in hectares (a) of forest types by tenure burnt (b) by unplanned fires
TENURE (b) VEGETATION TYPE
(c) YEAR
2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16
Permanent timber production zone
land
Dry eucalypt forest 100 3000 200 500 11 000
Wet eucalypt forest 100 2000 200 90 20 000
Other native forest 30 30 400 5000
Plantation 90 700 50 10 3000
Conservation & Public Reserves
Dry eucalypt forest 50 9000 1000 90 11 000
Wet eucalypt forest 800 400 10 3000
Other native forest 2000 200 2000
Plantation
Other publicly managed land
Dry eucalypt forest 60 7000 400 1000 6000
Wet eucalypt forest 800 200 80 7000
Other native forest 30 900 200 3000
Plantation
Private freehold land
Dry eucalypt forest 2000 19 000 2000 4000 4000
Wet eucalypt forest 900 200 20 500
Other native forest 60 70 20 10 100
Plantation 100 2000 70 30 500
TOTAL (d) ALL 3 000 49 000 5 000 6 000 78 000
a) Figures rounded to nearest 10/100/1000 hectares. b) Fire extent is for forested (as mapped in vegetation communities) land only. c) Tenure for all fire seasons as at 30th June 2016. d) Vegetation mapping for all seasons as at first quarter of 2015. e) Totals are rounded sums of actual totals.
The total land area for each of the tenure classifications used in Table 3.1.b.1 and Table 3.1.b.2
has changed during the reporting period. Year to year comparisons of the percentage area burnt
by tenure reflect both changes in tenure and fire activity.
State of the forests Tasmania 2017 102
FT records of the areas of permanent timber production zone land burnt by unplanned fire and
the PWS records of the area of reserved land burnt by unplanned fire are more comprehensive
than the TFS records of the areas of private land burnt by unplanned fire. In addition to the
unplanned fires recorded as occurring on private land, it is likely that there are additional
unplanned fires that are not reported to the TFS and so are not included in the records.
Consequently the recorded area burnt by unplanned fire on private land is certainly understated
but to what extent is unknown.
The episodic nature of Tasmania’s fire seasons can be seen in the following chart of area burnt
per season by fires attended by Forestry Tasmania personnel. Because not all of these fires
were confined to permanent timber production zone land the ‘area burnt’ depicted for each year
in this chart is greater than the area of permanent timber production zone land burnt in that year.
FT records dating back to 1941 indicate that three of the past five fire seasons were well below
average. There were two severe bushfires (large-scale wildfires); the Dunalley bushfire in
2012–13 and the north-west bushfires in 2015–16. About 120 000 ha were burnt by bushfires in
2015–1, 78 000 ha of which were forested. This the greatest area burnt since the 1971/72 fire
season (44 years ago) when over 140 000 ha were burnt.
State of the forests Tasmania 2017 103
Figure 3.1.b.3: Total unplanned fire area attended by Forestry Tasmania from 1940/41
Note: Includes unplanned fires in non-forested areas and on all tenures
-
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
180,000
200,000 19
41/1
942
1943
/194
4
1945
/194
6
1947
/194
8
1949
/195
0
1951
/195
2
1953
/195
4
1955
/195
6
1957
/195
8
1959
/196
0
1961
/196
2
1963
/196
4
1965
/196
6
1967
/196
8
1969
/197
0
1970
/197
2
1973
/197
4
1975
/197
6
1977
/197
8
1979
/198
0
1981
/198
2
1983
/198
4
1985
/198
6
1987
/198
8
1989
/199
0
1991
/199
2
1993
/199
4
1995
/199
6
1997
/199
8
1999
/200
0
2001
/200
2
2003
/200
4
2005
/200
6
2007
/200
8
2009
/201
0
2011
/201
2
2013
/201
4
2015
/201
6
He
ctar
es
Figure 3.1.b.3: Total unplanned fire area attended by Forestry Tasmania from 1940/41
Average
State of the forests Tasmania 2017 104
CRITERION 4: CONSERVATION AND MAINTENANCE OF SOIL AND WATER RESOURCES
This criterion monitors the area of forest across Tasmania managed primarily for catchment
protection values. Management procedures put in place, including their implementation, to
mitigate against the risk of soil erosion and minimise the risk to soil physical properties, water
quality and water quantity are also reported.
INDICATOR 4.1.a AREA OF FOREST MANAGED PRIMARILY FOR
PROTECTIVE FUNCTIONS
This indicator reports the area of forest land managed for the protection of soil and water
values.
Soil and water values are protected on forest land in Tasmania through a range of measures,
with two key mechanisms being the Forest Practices Code 2015 and the Tasmanian Reserve
Management Code of Practice 2003.
The Forest Practices Code 2015 provides specific management prescriptions to be applied to
forest practices as defined by the Forest Practices Act 1985 on any forest lands, particularly
roading, harvesting or reforestation. The objectives of the Forest Practices Code provisions in
relation to soil and water are to minimise soil erosion, compaction, nutrient loss and landslides
and to maintain acceptable water quality and flow. This code applies over all tenures.
Soil and water values are also protected in nature conservation reserves in Tasmania. The
Tasmanian Reserve Management Code of Practice 2003 applies to all terrestrial reserves
managed under the National Parks and Reserves Management Act 2002, the Forestry Act 1920
(repealed in December 2013) and the Crown Lands Act 1976. The reserve management code
aims to maintain or restore the natural quality of water and to maintain or restore natural soil
processes and avoid soil degradation, within reserved lands.
Area of forest where disturbance activities which impact on soil and water values are
excluded
Activities that can directly affect soil and water values in forested areas are roading, timber
harvesting, burning and recreation activities. The only one of these activities that is broadly
excluded from substantive areas of protected land in Tasmania is timber harvesting. The other
three activity types listed are rarely fully excluded. However, the potential impacts of these
activities are managed through codes of practice, such as those described above. Asset
planning for recreation facilities on reserves managed under the National Parks and Reserves
Management Act 2002 shows that most land in reserves is not actively used for recreation by
way of roads, tracks etc. Hence although recreation activities are not excluded from most
reserved land, by virtue of the small area of land occupied by access and other visitor
infrastructure, the vast majority of the area of nature conservation reserves is not subject to
disturbance which might impact on soil and water values.
Table 4.1.a provides the area of forest land, within each of the four main land tenure categories,
where timber harvesting is excluded. The total area of land excluded from timber harvesting
across all categories of land in 2016 is 2 037 000 ha.
State of the forests Tasmania 2017 105
Table 4.1.a Area (hectares) of native forest where timber harvesting is excluded, by tenure (in ‘000s)
REPORTING DATE
Land Classification (Tenure)
Multiple use forest or PTPZ
land(a)
Nature conservation
reserve(b)
Other publicly
managed land(c)
Private freehold land(d)
Total area excluded
June 2001 368 1104 80 3 1556
June 2006 419 1121 85 48 1673
June 2011 582 1172 73 83 1910
June 2016 327 1255 358 96 2037
Notes:
(a) The figures provided in this column include only those areas of native forest on Multiple Use Forest land from 2001 to 2011, and on permanent timber production zone (PTPZ) land in 2016, that are not available for timber harvesting, including areas in informal reserves and areas that are too steep or inaccessible or otherwise excluded by the provisions of the Forest Practices Code.
(b) The nature conservation reserve category includes all formal reserve categories within the CAR reserve system.
(c) This category of tenure broadly includes native forest on Commonwealth land, unallocated Crown land and FPPF land
(d) The figures provided in this column include only those areas of native forest on private land that are within the CAR reserve system (eg conservation covenants, private nature reserves).
During the reporting period 2011 to 2016 the main trends evident from the data provided in
Table 4.1.a are:
There has been a net decrease of 255 000 ha (44%), in the total area of native forest
excluded from timber harvesting within what was Multiple Use Forest land and is now
permanent timber production zone land. This is primarily due to the gazettal of future
potential production forest land.
There has been a net increase of 83 000 ha, or 7%, in the total area of native forest in
nature conservation reserves.
There has been a net increase of 285 000 ha, or 390%, in the total area of forest on other
publicly managed land, primarily because of the gazettal of future potential production
forest land.
There has been a net increase of 13 000 ha in the total area of native forest excluded from
timber harvesting on private land. This increase on the 83 000 ha in 2011 reported in State
of the forests Tasmania 2012 is a continuation of a trend identified in the previous report.
The ongoing increase is due to the increase in area of forest protected within conservation
covenants or other private reserves over the last five years through a range of private land
conservation programs.
In total there has been a net increase of 126 500 ha or 7% of forest across all tenures where
timber harvesting has been excluded reducing potential disturbance to water supply
catchments.
State of the forests Tasmania 2017 106
Area of forest in catchments managed primarily to provide water for human or industrial
use
Tasmania has large areas of forested catchments within the CAR reserve system. Many of
these catchments are used for water harvest for domestic or industrial use, although the
majority of these are not explicitly reserved as water catchment areas. However, under the
National Parks and Reserves Management Act 2002, all reserve classes have as one of the
statutory management objectives the requirement ‘to preserve the quality of water and protect
catchments’. Two reserves where the role as drinking water catchments is explicitly
recognised are Wellington Park and Mt Field National Park. The slopes of Mount Wellington
are specifically set aside and managed for town water supply to Hobart and adjacent localities.
The Wellington Park Management Plan 2005, developed under the Wellington Park Act 1993,
includes the requirement to manage water catchments in the park as sources of clean water.
The Lake Fenton/Lady Barron Creek drinking water catchment covers 1530 ha of the Mt Field
National Park and supplies 20% of drinking water for Hobart and environs. The Mt Field
National Park Management Plan 2002 identifies the importance of the catchment for drinking
water and provides controls on use and works in the catchment to protect water quality.
There is no statewide area figure available for forest in catchments explicitly managed for
water harvest. The total area of forested catchment (ie forest land) in the CAR reserve system
is provided in INDICATOR 1.1.c.
Area of environmental plantings of trees on previously degraded or cleared sites, to
improve the protective function for soil and water values
The 2007 Sustainability indicators report included information on plantings undertaken
through government funded programs such as the Australian Government’s Natural Heritage
Trust and the National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality. Information on the status of
these plantings, and similar initiatives during this reporting period are not available.
During the reporting period there have been plantings initiated by a number of forest
companies, including Timberlands Pacific, Norske Skog and Gunns. The plantings are being
made in second rotation sites, in areas which are now subject to the Forest Practices Code and
on pasture sites where there are constraints on establishing plantations adjoining streams.
These areas are increasingly being established with native species. For the reporting period
2011–16 approximately 500 ha have been reforested in this way (see Table 2.1.e.2).
State of the forests Tasmania 2017 107
INDICATOR 4.1.b MANAGEMENT OF THE RISKS OF SOIL EROSION AND THE
RISKS TO SOIL PHYSICAL PROPERTIES, WATER
QUANTITY AND WATER QUALITY IN FORESTS
INDICATOR 4.1.b reports the extent to which the risks to the physical properties and
distribution of soils, and the risks to water quality and quantity in Tasmanian forests have been
explicitly assessed and addressed in forest management.
Maintaining soil and water values in forests is critical to sustainable forest management
because:
soil erosion reduces soil depth, results in loss of nutrient- and carbon-rich topsoil and
affects stream water quality and sediment load
physical degradation of soils, including compaction, mixing and loss of soils structure, can
affect seed germination, growth and survival of trees and can lead to increased water runoff
and erosion
downstream users (including the natural ecosystem and commercial and domestic users)
depend on natural flows being maintained in streams, although it must be recognised that
stream flow and groundwater recharge are affected by wildfires as well as forest age.
Developing a baseline for reporting is difficult, particularly for water quality. For example,
turbidity and suspended solids in Australian drinking water in catchments largely free of human
intervention can exceed recommended standards due to high levels of natural tannins or organic
matter, or movement of organic matter and sediments in floods (Roberts 2008).
Changes in water quality can affect aquatic biodiversity – see CRITERION 1.
The use of chemicals in forest management may affect water quality – see CRITERION 3.
Water quality
Catchment research within Tasmania and in similar temperate forests on the mainland has
shown that commercial forestry influences both the hydrological and ecological characteristics
of catchments (e.g. Davies and Nelson 1993; Lane and Mackay 2001; Vertessy 1999; Vertessy
et al. 2001; Bunce et al. 2001; Davies et al. 2005). A paper by Davies et al. (2016) related
stream ecosystem condition to upstream forest management but the study was retrospective and
historical: none of the coupes studied were harvested in the reporting period and the average
harvest age was pre–1991; in addition, no direct links between stream condition and harvest
operations were noted. The percentage of land under grazing in a catchment can be used to
predict stream health; when the total exceeds 40% of the catchment area a marked decline of
sensitive aquatic invertebrates (a key measure of river ecological health) results. As
commercial forests tend to be concentrated in contiguous areas, most forested catchments have
healthy rivers (Lefroy 2010) and in commercial eucalypt forests there has been ‘no visible
impact of logging on the water flow’ in Launceston water supply catchments (O’Shaughnessy
and Bren 2001).
The Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment (DPIPWE) maintains an
extensive stream gauging and river health monitoring network in Tasmania’s major rural
catchments. Water quality is routinely monitored at 86 stream gauging sites, spot sampling
turbidity, dissolved oxygen, pH, electrical conductivity and water temperature.
River health is currently monitored at 60 sites across the state in autumn and spring every 2
years.
State of the forests Tasmania 2017 108
The monitoring undertaken by the DPIPWE indicate that streams within catchments with a
history of forestry operations showed no significant impacts in terms of river health and
possessed similar macroinvertebrate communities to those without such operations.
Although use of triazines in plantation forestry resulted in contamination of stream water
before 2009 (McIntosh and Hawkins 2005; McIntosh 2007, 2008), the use of these long half-
life chemicals has now been drastically curtailed and no records of triazine contamination of
streams in forested catchments has been reported to the FPA in the reporting period.
Assessment of risk
As noted previously, the effects of forest practices on soil and stream condition are not
routinely monitored at the coupe or catchment level because of the difficulty of obtaining
meaningful results and the practical difficulties that arise when trying to establish long-term
monitoring: for example monitoring stations may be damaged or destroyed by floods or
animals, or vandalised. However, small research-scale studies have produced useful results (e.g.
Harwood and Jackson 1975; Bren et al. 1997; Croke et al. 1999; Laffan et al. 2001; Pennington
et al. 2001). Studies have shown that the forestry operations that most increase the risk to soil
and water values include: the timing of road building; road position in the landscape; road
drainage; drainage of temporary tracks and firebreaks; lack of dispersion of timber harvesting
operations in catchments; long-term change of land use; operations in or near streams or
riparian areas; diversion of water courses; soil compaction; and short periods of high-intensity
rainfall, such as 24-hour rainfall exceeding 100 mm, which occur regularly in north-east
Tasmania. Depending on its severity and location, fire can lead to erosion and affect water
quantity and flow.
An effective alternative to long-term monitoring of soil and water quality is to check whether
management provisions for limiting deleterious effects are included in plans and applied during
operations. Meaningful indicators of soil erosion risk management are (1) whether
preventative measures designed to limit soil and water damage are included in harvest
proposals (forest practices plans); (2) whether management guidelines are implemented during
harvest operations, rehabilitation and reforestation; and (3) whether operations comply with
codes of practices, other regulatory instruments and associated guidelines.
The Forest Practices Code 2015 and supporting manuals (listed below), other regulatory
instruments (listed in Indicator 7.1.a and applying to public and private lands at different
scales), environmental certification schemes (such as the Australian Forestry Standard and
ISO 14001) and internal agency or company operational guidelines provide benchmarks against
which the management of soil and water values can be assessed.
The Forest Practices Code 2015 manuals which apply to management of soil and water values
include:
Soil
o Forest Soil Fact Sheets
o Forest Soils of Tasmania
o Quarry Code of Practice
o A method for assessing the erodibility of Tasmanian forest soils
o Guidelines for cut road batters in high erodibility soils
o Sinkhole guidelines
o The Strahan guidelines: Prescriptions and guidelines for sustainable harvest of
plantations on high and very high erodibility west coast dune sands
Water
o Estimation of Peak Flows for Small to Medium Sized Rural Catchments
o A Guide to Riparian Vegetation and its Management
o Riparian Land Management Technical Guidelines
o Guidelines for the Protection of Class 4 streams.
Irrespective of land tenure or forest type, assessments for soil and water risks are made for all
forest activities covered by Forest Practices Act 1985. Assessments are also commonly
undertaken on public (including conservation) forests and large industrially managed private
forests in relation to road and other site developments (e.g. major recreation facilities, ongoing
maintenance or infrastructure) not specified under the Forest Practices Act 1985. Forest
activities not specified under the Forest Practices Act 1985 (e.g. small-scale firewood
harvesting) are not reported.
Table 4.1.b.1and Table 4.1.b.2 indicate the extent to which legally and non-legally binding
instruments in Tasmania address risks to soil and water values, using the subjective four-level
scale as indicated below, for specified forest management and operations. There has been no
change in the way both legally and non-legally binding instruments address the risks to soil and
water values during the reporting period 2011–2016 compared to previous reporting periods.
Subjective level scale used to determine the extent to which instruments address the risk to soil and water values for the management disturbance activities in Tables 4.1.b.1 and 2
1 The instruments require the following components to be taken into account in addressing the risk to soil and water values from disturbance:
1) slope
2) erosion processes (wind, sheet, rill, gully, tunnel, stream bank, wave and mass movement)
Table 4.1.b.1 Extent to which legally binding instruments address the risk of soil and water values for the disturbance activities listed
DISTURBANCE TYPE Multiple-use forest
Nature conservation reserves
Other Crown land
Private
Mineral exploration/ mining/ quarries
1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2
Native forest harvesting & silviculture, including related road/trail construction and/or maintenance
1 1 NA NA 1 1 1 1
Plantation operations 1 1 NA NA 1 1 1 1
Road/trail construction or maintenance (not related to forestry operations)
1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4
Walking trail construction or maintenance
1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4
Utility corridors including pipelines
1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1
Fire management 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4
Tourism/recreation developments and management
1 1 2 2 3 3 3 3
State of the forests Tasmania 2017 111
Table 4.1.b.2 Extent to which non-legally binding instruments address the risk of soil and water values for the management disturbance activities listed
DISTURBANCE TYPE Multiple-use forest
Nature conservation reserves
Other Crown land
Private
Mineral exploration/ mining/ quarries
1 1 1 1 – - 2 2
Native forest harvesting & silviculture, including related road/trail construction and/or maintenance
1 1 NA NA - - 2 2
Plantation operations 1 1 NA NA - - 2 2
Road/trail construction or maintenance (not related to forestry operations)
1 1 2 2 - - 2 2
Walking trail construction or maintenance
1 1 2 2 - - 3 3
Utility corridors 1 1 2 2 - - 3 3
Fire management 1 1 2 2 - - 3 3
Tourism/recreation developments and management
1 1 2 2 - - 3 3
Knowledge base
The Forest Practices Act 1985 requires that ‘all forests practices are conducted in accordance
with the Forest Practices Code’. The Code underpins Tasmania’s forest practices system
whose objective is ‘to achieve sustainable management of Crown and private forests with due
care for the environment.’ In accordance with the Act’s objective, the Code provides a set of
practical guidelines and standards for the protection of environmental values (including soil,
and water quality and flow) during forest planning and operation:
● Soils
o Section D1: Soils, details prescriptions and principles which underpin operations
in order to protect soil values. This includes a guide for identifying a soil’s
erodibility class (Appendix 6 of the code). Erodibility class then influences
operational prescriptions and limitations (as specified in Tables 2, 3, 5, 6 and 10,
and Appendices 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Code) designed to ameliorate the impact of
forest activities on soil values.
Water
o Section C4: Water Quality and Watercourse Protection and Section D2: Water
Quality and Flow focuses on prescriptions and principles which protect all water
catchments and watercourses identified during planning and operational
activities within forests. Specific guidelines include culvert spacing along roads
(Table 2 of the Code), wet weather harvesting criteria (Table 3 and 5 of the
State of the forests Tasmania 2017 112
Code) and wet weather limitations (Section C2) and the establishment of
streamside reserves and machinery exclusion zones (Table 8 of the Code).
The Forest Practices Authority website (www.fpa.gov.au) also enables Forest Practices
Officers and any member of the public including landowners and managers to access keys to
soils and information on soil and water issues that supports the Forest Practices Code 2015.
These include:
Soils
o Soils in Cambrian sediments and volcanics (13 soils)
o Soils in dolerite and sediments derived from dolerite (14 soils)
o Soils in granite and sediments derived from granite (24 soils)
o Soils in granodiorite (6 soils)
o Soils in Permian sediments (12 soils)
o Soils in Triassic sandstone and sandstone-dolerite mixtures (10 soils)
o Soils in Mathinna Beds (16 soils)
Water
o Guidelines for the Protection of Class 4 streams
o Forest Sinkhole Manual.
Soil and water identification, management and support documents, combined with ongoing
research and training, and the experience of forest managers ensure that sufficient knowledge is
available for the identification and mapping of soil types and water courses, and recording their
characteristics and distribution. This knowledge base enables risks arising from the
interactions between slope, climate, soil type, rainfall, stream management, and vegetation
cover to be assessed and managed.
The Parks and Wildlife Service maintains an ongoing recreation impact monitoring program,
mainly in the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area, until 2015. Soil data were regularly
recorded as part of this program.
Using the following qualitative ratings as a guide, an assessment of the comprehensiveness and
appropriateness of the knowledge base within Tasmania for managing the risk of soil erosion
on each tenure is detailed in Table 4.1.b.3.
State of the forests Tasmania 2017 113
Soil and water Knowledge Base Interpretation
1. Knowledge well developed, including: published research, GIS tools, decision support tools, codes of practice, local knowledge and training, site specific research/models
2. Reasonable knowledge of impacts of activity on listed value, includes local knowledge and training, codes of practice
3. Some local knowledge of impacts of activity on listed value, not in codes, research publications
4. Minimal knowledge – general principles but untested in this landscape
5. No knowledge, not in a position to assess and manage the risk.
Table 4.1.b.3 Comprehensiveness and appropriateness of the knowledge base for the management of the risk of soil erosion
TENURE Scale of knowledge
Narrative on the knowledge base of soil and water values
PTPZ* land and some public land previously known as State forest
1 Major areas of public forest in northern Tasmania have been mapped at 1:250 000 scale; 95 soil types with differing properties and erosion risks have been identified throughout the state, mostly in PTPZ land; areas at risk from erosion are identified in plans and protected or managed appropriately following the Forest Practices Code; advice is given through the FPA; notification to the FPA is obligatory for high and very high erodibility soils and for moderate to high erodibility soils on steep slopes; landslides are recorded on a joint FPA/MRT database; research is being conducted on erosion by headwater streams; several papers have been published on erosion by headwater streams; regular training given to foresters and forest managers
Nature conservation reserves
2 and 3 Limited knowledge, generally site specific in areas of management interest e.g. WHA walking tracks, campsites; some publications; managed by the Parks and Wildlife Service.
Other Crown land
3, 4 and 5 Few publications; limited knowledge, generally site specific; managed by Parks and Wildlife Service; remote areas have very limited knowledge (‘5’ classification)
Private 2 One private company (Norske Skog) has mapped the soils of its forest estate; other companies conduct soil surveys on an ad hoc basis, generally pre-purchase or before operations begin; soil database is less complete than for multiple-use forest (see above) but procedures to identify and manage risks are similar, viz.: areas at risk from erosion are identified in plans and protected or managed appropriately following the Forest Practices Code as for multiple-use forest above.
State of the forests Tasmania 2017 114
Assessment of practices
All of the major professional forest management organisations in Tasmania participate in one
or more independently assessed environmental management and/or forest certification schemes
tied to standards such as ISO14001, The Australian Forestry Standard, and the Forest
Stewardship Council (see INDICATOR 7.1.b: Independent assessment of forest activities).
Assessment of forest practices which have been carried out under a forest practices plan (FPP)
certified under the Forest Practices Act 1985 are also undertaken by the Forest Practices
Authority on all tenure classes. This assessment takes two forms: compliance reporting on
discrete operational phases performed on every certified FPP, and the FPA’s annual
compliance assessment program performed on a random sample of plans certified in the
previous three years (see Table 4.1.b.5 below.) Conservation forest, other Crown lands and
private forests are not externally audited unless subject to a forest practices plan or forest
certification audit.
Using the following qualitative ratings as a guide, an assessment of the level of processes in
place to manage the risk to soil and water values on each tenure is detailed in Table 4.1.b.4.
State of the forests Tasmania 2017 115
Qualitative ratings applied to determine Table 4.1.b.4
1 Legal/ non-legal mechanisms exist for managing the risk of soil and water values comprehensively and are subjected to regular external audit
2 Legal/ non-legal mechanisms exist for managing the risk to soil and water values comprehensively but are not subjected to regular external audit
3 There are no legal/ non-legal mechanisms exist for managing the risk to soil and water values and there is no auditing to assess the extent of impacts.
Table 4.1.b.4 The level (1–3) of processes applied to manage the risk to soil and water values
Permanent Timber
Production Zone land
Nature conservation
reserves
Other Crown land
Private
Mineral exploration/ mining/ quarries
1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2
Native forest harvesting & silviculture, including related road construction and/or maintenance
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Plantation operations
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Road/trail construction or maintenance (not related to forestry operations)
1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2
Walking trail construction or maintenance
1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2
Utility corridors 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2
Fire management
1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2
Tourism/ recreation development/ management
1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2
The FPA’s independent assessment process assesses specific aspects of selected operations to
determine a performance rating against identified standards. Note the number of operations
assessed varies from year to year, but averages about 10–15% of FPPs certified.
Within each tenure group, coupes are randomly selected for compliance assessment. Full
details of assessments and methods, including questions addressed, are given in FPA annual
State of the forests Tasmania 2017 116
reports, available on the FPA website. 87 questions are considered, using a scoring system
ranging from 1 (unacceptable) to 3 (fully compliant) to rate performance. 53 of these questions
relate to soil and water issues.
The results in Table 4.1.b.5 indicate that consistently high scores are achieved for compliance
inspections concerning soil and water issues on all tenures, demonstrating that operations are
generally carried out to a very high standard and that only locally and sporadically do issues
require attention. (Note that only summaries for 2014–15 and 2015–16 are given as in previous
years a four-point system was used for scoring and results would not be comparable.)
Table 4.1.b.5 Summary of compliance assessments (mean scores out of a maximum score of 3) of soil and water issues on recently-active forestry operations.
YEAR Independent private
Industrial freehold
Permanent Timber Production Zone land
Total for all tenures
Roading (15 questions)
2014–15 3.0 3.0 2.9 2.9
2015–16 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9
Harvesting (18 questions)
2014–15 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9
2015–16 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9
Reforestation (13 questions)
2014–15 2.9 3.0 2.5 2.9
2015–16 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8
Soil erosion and watercourse classification (7 questions)
Source: Forestry Tasmania Annual Reports (2011–12 to 2015–16) and Private Forests Tasmania Annual Reports (2011–12 to 2015–16). * Assumes 1 m3 = 1 tonne
State of the forests Tasmania 2017 122
The data illustrates the difficult period the Tasmanian forest industry has experienced since
2011–12, notably the:
collapse of the largest private forestry business, Gunns Limited
collapse of hardwood plantations management entities; and
the comparatively high value of the Australian dollar against the US dollar, in which
international wood exports are traded.
The data further indicates the more positive levels of activity in the industry since 2013–14. In
2015–16, volumes increased by 28% from the previous financial year. The biggest growth has occurred in the hardwood plantation pulpwood sector, with an increase of 55 percent in 2015–
16 compared to the previous financial year.
Figure 6.1.a.1 Trends in total wood production on public and private forests in Tasmania 2006–16 (tonnes)
Figure 6.1.a.1 shows that from 2006 to 2011 there was a downward trend in production. Lowest
production levels were in 2011–12, with a total wood volume of 2.4 million tonnes.
Since 2011–12, there has been a significant recovery, with gains in annual output experienced
for the following four financial years.
5,986,000
6,712,000
5,582,000
4,218,000
4,855,000
2,466,7652,592,252
3,296,024
3,396,474
4,375,435
Total Wood Production from 2006-07 to 2015-16 for Tasmania (tonnes)
Total Wood Production
Linear (Total Wood Production)
Moving Average Trendline
State of the forests Tasmania 2017 123
2015–16 total wood production figures were still 34% below the peak output achieved in 2007–
08. Looking forward, it is expected that the hardwood plantation pulpwood sector will remain
the highest yield sector by volume.
In the five years since State of the forests Tasmania 2012, new private plantation enterprises
have been established in Tasmania. New Forests (an investment manager in forestry, land
management, and conservation) purchased the hardwood plantations previously owned by
Gunns Ltd. Since acquiring the former assets of Gunns, New Forests has embarked on an
investment program, through its forest manager, Forico, to rapidly build productive capacity.
Forico has since gained Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certification. As Tasmania’s largest
private owner of hardwood plantations, the increase in production by Forico has strongly
influenced the overall production figures for Tasmania, with the company forecasting even
greater volumes over the short to medium term.
The remaining timber sectors have been fairly stable over the previous five years. Native
forests are starting to see an increase in production, mainly confined to the native forest
pulpwood sector.
Figure 6.1.b.1 Native Forest Pulpwood Production Volumes and the AU-US Exchange Rate
Figure 6.1.b.1 highlights the negative correlation between the Australian dollar-US dollar
exchange rate and native forest pulpwood production. Between 2011–12 and 2015–16, the
Australian dollar depreciated by 30 percent against the US dollar. In that five year period, the
volume of native forest pulpwood produced increased by 98 percent.
There are a number of other factors that have affected the annual volumes of native forest
hardwood produced over the preceding five years. However, the declining value of the
Australian dollar (against the US dollar) has made Australian woodchips more competitive in
0.0000
0.2000
0.4000
0.6000
0.8000
1.0000
1.2000
0
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
700,000
800,000
900,000
11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16
US
Do
llars
Ton
ne
s
Year
Average AU-US Dollar Exchange Rate and Native Forest Pulpwood Volumes
Hardwood - native forestpulpwood
Australian $ v US$
State of the forests Tasmania 2017 124
Asian pulpwood markets. Native forest pulpwood is a bulk commodity that competes for
market share with pulpwood sourced from hardwood plantations and native forests from
Australian and international sources.
Forest management certification has also emerged as an important element of market access.
Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certification has become increasingly prominent,
particularly with respect to access to Japanese pulp markets.
Value
The forest industry in Tasmania is comprised of many different components. Deriving a
complete and accurate picture of the forest industry in Tasmania is a complex task. However,
there are various sources of information, included below, that will help to assist in providing a
guide to the size and scale of the Tasmanian industry in monetary terms.
ABARES publishes an annual Australian Forests and Wood Products Statistics (AFWPS)
report that contains data relevant to Tasmania’s forestry industry and the economic value this
generates in regional communities.
Table 6.1.a.2 Value of Logs Harvested in Tasmania (millions of dollars)
2011–12 2012–13 2013–14 2014–15 2015-16
Hardwood native 81 58 71 73 78
Harwood plantation 14 23 71 95 149
Softwood 79 77 72 63 66
Total 174 158 214 231 293
Source: ABARES AFWPS
Table 6.1.a.2 gives an indication of the transition that has taken place in Tasmanian forestry,
where the value of logs harvested from plantations now exceeds the value harvested from
native forests by a significant margin.
The value of the native forest hardwood harvest in 2015–16 was 54% less than the 2010–11
value ($170 m). The value of native forest hardwood logs harvested has stabilised over the last
three years of the reporting period.
The value of hardwood plantation logs harvested has increased ten-fold over the reporting
period, although the volume of logs harvested increased six-fold. This reflects increasing value
in the market of these products. Hardwood plantation production is expected to increase over
the short to medium term, with a maturing plantation estate and a simultaneous increased
investment in processing technologies to increase processing capacity.
The following table provides data on the value of certain components on the wood
manufacturing industry in Tasmania over a five year period.
State of the forests Tasmania 2017 125
Table 6.1.a.3 Wood Manufacturing Data for Tasmania – ABS Manufacturing industry by States and territories by ANZSIC subdivision (millions of dollars).
2011–12 2012–13 2013–14 2014–15 2015-16
Wood product manufacturing 350 256 335 381 389
Furniture and other manufacturing 74 77 78 81 NA*
Pulp, paper and converted paper product manufacturing
356 336 NA NA NA
Source: ABS NA* means data not available
The data in Table 6.1.a.3 is for the Sales and Service Incomes of these sectors within the timber
industry. Again, the table demonstrates the volatility faced by the forest industry in Tasmania
over the past 5 years.
Sales values of furniture and from other manufacturing has been consistent over the previous
five years, although the figures suggest a reduction in value in real terms.
The value of wood product manufacturing, after a severe decline in 2012-13, has steadily
increased to $389m. Furniture and other manufacturing, and pulp and paper manufacturing
have remained relatively stable for the years for which data are available.
State of the forests Tasmania 2017 126
INDICATOR 6.1.b VALUES, QUANTITIES AND USE OF NON-WOOD FOREST
PRODUCTS
This indicator enabled socio-economic benefits to be monitored by ascertaining trends in
quantities, values and usage of non-wood products against management objectives.
State of the forests Tasmania 2012 provided some data and analysis on various other non-wood
forest products produced from the forests. Changes in the types of data collected, and the
levels of monitoring by Government and industry bodies, means that some data relied upon in
2012 is no longer available. This report has relied on those data sources that remain available,
together with other research and industry observations.
Honey and Beeswax
The apiary industry is regulated by the Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and
Environment (DPIPWE).
Honey is the major commercial output of the honey bee industry. There are a number of other
products which also add to the income of honey bee businesses, and include paid pollination
services, beeswax production, queen bee and packaged bee sales.
Leatherwood honey is the most distinctive Tasmanian honey, and accounts for a significant
proportion of sales, particularly outside of the State.
Leatherwood (Eucryphia lucida) trees predominantly occur in mature wet eucalypt forest and
rainforest. Approximately one million ha of forest in Tasmania has been identified as likely to
contain leatherwood. Of this, 230 000 ha (21%) occurs on permanent timber production zone
land, with about 98 000 ha of this area zoned for wood production.
The majority of beekeepers in Tasmania depend on land managed by Forestry Tasmania for
access to leatherwood nectar.
Beekeeping is identified as a management objective for areas with a high leatherwood
component under Forestry Tasmania’s Management Decision Classification zoning system.
Harvesting in these special management zones takes particular account of maintaining and
enhancing leatherwood sources.
In 2014, the Australian Bureau of Agriculture and Resource Economics and Sciences
(ABARES) determined the gross value of production (GVP) of the beekeeping industry in
2012–13 in Australia was $88 million, with a forecasted GVP of $92 million in 2013–14
(ABARES, 2014). The relatively small beekeeping industry GVP understates the industry’s
value to agriculture, and the economy in general, particularly through pollination services,
which provide a vital service which generates significant revenue for the agriculture industry in
Tasmania. Economic studies of this industry in the past have shown its annual contribution to
our economy to be about $100 million of which at least 90% is through crop pollination
(DPIPWE, 2010).
Table 6.1.b.1 Registered Beekeepers and Bee Hives in Tasmania
2011–12 2012–13 2013–14 2014–15 2015–16
No. Reg. beekeepers 169 173 181 186 215
No. Reg. hives 17 243 16 084 16 490 19 660 19 930
Source: Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment
State of the forests Tasmania 2017 127
Beekeeping, and the industries dependent on it, remains a relatively small-scale industry in
Tasmania. There are seven commercial honey operations registered in the state (Tasmanian
Beekeepers).
The registration numbers provided by DPIPWE indicate a continuing increase in the number of
registered beekeepers, although the number of hives per registered bee keeper has fallen,
suggesting that the bulk of the increase has been in small-scale bee keeping operations. As
noted in relation to Table 2.1.d.1, the number of hives known to be located on public forest
exceeds the number of registered hives reported in Table 6.1.b.1 , due to hive registration being
non-compulsory at the present time.
Seed
Forestry Tasmania collected 1066 kilograms of native tree seed for the 2015–16 financial year.
This is an increase on the previous three financial years, yet still less than the 2011–12 financial
year when 1406 kilograms of seed were collected.
Table 6.1.b.2 Annual Collection of Native Tree Seed
Year Raw seed (Kg)
2011–12 1406
2012–13 402
2013–14 352
2014–15 710
2015–16 1066
Source: Forestry Tasmania
Wildlife Harvesting
Since the data for 2010 were published in State of the forests Tasmania 2012, no further data or
statistics have been collected by DPIPWE on the amounts of wallaby and possum meat
processed every year. Data is compiled by DPIPWE each year on the number of recreational
and crop protection licences issued for some species of game in Tasmania. The business of
controlling and protecting crops from economic losses incurred from animal incursions helps
support regional businesses and employment.
The table below provides some data on the number of fallow deer licence sales and the number
reported to have been taken.
Table 6.1.b.3 Fallow Deer Licence Sales and Reported Take 2011–2015
Forestry Tasmania Tasmanian government business enterprise – manages native and plantation forests, recreation and tourism facilities, roads and infrastructure, and carries out forest research and analysis either directly or in collaboration.
Forico Pty Ltd Tasmania’s largest private forest company – responsible for New Forests’ hardwood plantation assets. Business concentrates on the management and harvesting of hardwood plantations
IFARM (Independent Forest And Resource Management)
A management services business to private forest owners, that seeks to optimise the assets by providing sustainable, environmental, social, economic and cultural outcomes.
Hydro Tasmania Tasmanian government owned business – responsible for use and management of water resources to produce power and manages forested land that surrounds dam infrastructure.
Natural Resource Management (NRM) Groups
A government funded network of three regional bodies working with local communities to co-ordinate improved management of natural resources, including forests.
New Forests International funds management business – owns Taswood pine estate and Timberlink sawmill, and the former Gunns hardwood plantation assets.
Norske Skog International company which owns and manages native and plantation forests, and wood processing plants.
Private Forest Owners There are approximately 5 000 private land owners in Tasmania whose property incorporates native and-or plantation forest.
Private Forest Reserve Owners A wide range of owners and organisations, with over 600 conservation covenants in place. Funding is typically through governments, donations and the sale of covenanted lands for the purchase, management, and conservation of lands that include forests.
Resource Management Services LLC (RMS) A United-States based forestry investment manager. Purchased the forest assets of Forest Enterprises Australia.
State of the forests Tasmania 2017 137
Organisation Function
SFM Forest Products A forest management and wood broking company operating in the private and public forest sectors in Tasmania
Tasmania Parks and Wildlife Service Part of DPIPWE, which is responsible for the management of large areas of forested reserved lands for conservation and recreation.
Timberlands Pacific Provides expertise to manage large plantation forests in Australia, and market forest products both domestically and internationally.
AKS Forest Solutions A forest management and wood broking company operating in the private and public forest sectors in Tasmania.
Tasmanian Land Conservancy A private fund which aims to protect areas with high conservation values for species which are not adequately protected on private land.
Pentarch Directly involved in the procurement, development and sale of timber products to export markets in Asia and the Middle East.
Tourism Tasmania Tasmanian statutory authority – promotes tourism within Tasmania including in forested areas.
Wildcare Inc Tasmania’s largest environmental volunteer group supporting heritage conservation and reserve management, including many forested areas.
In addition to those listed in Table 6.2.a.1 there are other organisations involved in the
promotion of improved approaches to the management of forests. These include the ARC
Centre for Forest Value (UTas), the Forest Industries Association of Tasmania, the Tasmanian
Timber Promotion Board, the National Forest Learning Centre, Timber Communities Australia,
the Australian Forest Growers, local governments and volunteer organisations including
Landcare.
Ongoing commitment to the Tasmanian RFA supports a culture of continuous improvement
and adaptive management which is embraced and driven by forest managers. Forestry
Tasmania employs stringent forestry management systems that underpin their compliance with
various forest standards, and the majority of industrial forest areas are accredited under the
Australian Forestry Standard (AFS) and other independently audited environmental
management systems such as ISO 14001. A large area of Tasmania’s production forest is now
also Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certified (see INDICATOR 7.1.b). Forestry Tasmania
has recently achieved FSC Controlled Wood certification for its plantation operations. This
allows Forestry Tasmania, and other organisations who hold FSC Controlled Wood
certification, to sell FSC Controlled Wood to customers who hold FSC Chain of Custody
certification. This product can then be combined with fully certified products to create an “FSC
mix” product e.g. for paper production.
The Tasmanian Government, as the largest forest resource owner, remains the major investor in
forest management, through the Parks and Wildlife Service and Forestry Tasmania.
State of the forests Tasmania 2017 138
Hydro Tasmania manages water in forested catchments to create power, and TasWater
manages the supply of water for domestic and other uses from forested catchments. These
entities have made minor investments in forest management.
The Parks and Wildlife Service has made a considerable investment in infrastructure in
reserves to facilitate recreation and tourism, including roads, bridges, walking tracks, viewing
platforms, picnic facilities, toilets, camping areas, some overnight accommodation, information
and interpretation signs as well as management infrastructure including fire trails, water
supplies, staff housing, workshops and communications facilities. A conservative estimate of
the current value of this infrastructure is over $300 million (2015–16), up from $280 million in
2011. The increase in the estimated value of the infrastructure is due to two main factors:
improved recording of assets (i.e. there are now more assets recorded on the asset inventory
than previously) and the replacement-upgrading of existing infrastructure, leading to increased
value.
The annual operating budget for 2015–16 for the Parks and Wildlife Service was approximately
$60 million. These funds are spent on administering and managing forests in Tasmania’s parks
and reserve system. These areas provide significant environmental, social, cultural and
economic benefits and experiences. The Parks and Wildlife Service budget also contains a $4
million provision for managing and maintaining high priority infrastructure, enabling necessary
replacement and upgrading of old infrastructure.
Forestry Tasmania has been adjusting its business model over the last few years to help it to
achieve profitability from its forest management business. This had inevitably resulted in
Forestry Tasmania reducing its cost structure in managing Tasmania’s native production forest
estate. In 2015–16, total operational expenditure for wood production and conservation
activities on Tasmania’s permanent timber production zone land totalled $148 million. This
included: expenditure on the establishment, protection, tending and harvesting of native forests
and plantations; inventory, mapping, and planning of forest; servicing and maintenance of
recreational and tourism facilities and conservation reserves; maintenance and development of
roads; and maintenance of corporate services and facilities.
Forestry Tasmania continues to invest in forest infrastructure, with millions of dollars each year
deployed annually. Investments include:
Maintaining more than 2111 km of roads, bridges and other infrastructure that in addition to
industrial processors, provide access, and support, for:
o Fire protection, firefighting, training and response capacity
o Tourism, fishing, hunting, walking, and cycling
o The honey industry; and
o The local Tasmanian firewood industry.
Recreation and tourist facilities including camping sites, parks, barbecues, boating facilities,
and ‘adventure hubs’.
There is no estimate of the value of private investment for tourism in reserves. In the last two
years, the Tasmanian Government has sought to provide greater opportunities for businesses to
operate in the reserved land network.
The Parks and Wildlife Service’s volunteer partner is Wildcare Inc, the largest and fastest
growing incorporated environmental volunteer group in Tasmania, with a membership of
around 6000. It undertakes volunteer work supporting natural and cultural heritage
conservation and reserve management throughout the state. Work is undertaken in reserves
State of the forests Tasmania 2017 139
and on private land in close partnership with a number of government agencies as well as with
local government and private landowners. It is estimated that around 200 000 hours are
volunteered per year, to the value of almost $5 million (DPIPWE, Budget Papers 2015–16).
References
Schirmer J, Dunn C, Loxton E (2014) Socio-economic impacts of forest industry change
Tasmanian Forest industry employment and production, 2012–13, Tasmanian Government,
Hobart.
State of the forests Tasmania 2017 140
INDICATOR 6.2.b INVESTMENT IN RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, EXTENSION
AND USE OF NEW AND IMPROVED TECHNOLOGIES
This indicator reports the level of investment and investment trends in research, development,
extension and use of technologies to improve forest management for economic, social or
environmental purposes.
Research and development is a driver of innovation and is vital to ongoing industry
competitiveness, sustainability and investment for economic, social and environmental values.
Innovation is considered to be an adaptation to change resulting from applying known and/or
original technology/management approaches or processes in ways which provide real
advantages across the supply chain. The innovation process can also result from observation
and operational experience or experimentation, adopting strategic approaches to challenges, or
a combination of trial and error, intuition and luck.
Tasmania’s forest and wood product industry has a long history of adapting to change through
innovation. Early forest utilisation concentrated on the production of shingles, split posts, rails,
palings and pit sawn logs. These processes were labour intensive, required low skill levels and
involved low capital investments. Industrialisation led to the development of water and steam
powered light rail and automated sawmilling technology which supported an expansion of
forestry at a scale which supported the development of new markets. For example, the
development of ‘steaming’ or reconditioning technology (from the early 1930s) resulted in an
expanded use of native hardwoods in house construction.
Research and development has been a historical driver of innovation in Tasmania and is viewed
as an integral strength which is vital to the sustainability and competitiveness of current and
future forest-based industries.
Importantly Tasmania has developed strong expertise in forest sector research. In partnership
with private forest industry organisations and companies, significant research has been
undertaken during the reporting period 2011–2016 by a wide range of public organisations
including:
Cooperative Research Centre (CRC) for Forestry
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO)
Forestry Tasmania
Forest Practices Authority
University of Tasmania (and other universities)
National Centre for Future Forest Industries (NCFFI)
Private Forests Tasmania
ARC Centre for Forest Value
National Institute for Forest Products Innovation
Many of these research institutions also provide valuable training opportunities and their
continued funding is essential if the forest industry is to realise its potential.
Tasmanian companies’ strong links with research institutions have led to the development of
innovative sawmilling methods, improved recovery in harvesting practices and improved tree
productivity. In the forest management sector, the last five years have seen significant
increases in the adoption of a range of new technologies. Notable developments include:
State of the forests Tasmania 2017 141
● Restoration technologies linked to enhanced biodiversity management and genetic
selection for tree plantings in the face of climate change, in degraded farmlands of the
Central and Southern Midlands, Tasmania (S. Prober, CSIRO and N. Davidson,
Greening Australia, 2016):
Current and projected climate change has significant implications for the long term success
of environmental plantings in highly modified rural landscapes. The choice of tree species
and where to collect seed within a species range will be critical decisions in building
climate resilience into long-term environmental plantings.
A number of seed sourcing (provenancing) strategies have recently been proposed that
capitalize on inherent genetic diversity and adaptive capacity within native species and
these are currently being tested through pedigreed eucalypt provenance trials embedded
within large scale restoration plantings in the Midlands of Tasmania. Over the past six years
Greening Australia has established 850 ha of restoration plantings across 10 sites using
multiple local species and various establishment techniques. The provenancing trials
consists of range-wide collections for five eucalypt species to test the local vs. non-local
superiority in fitness (i.e. survival, growth, reproduction), in combination with glasshouse
studies investigating provenance differentiation in functional traits. Glasshouse results are
providing evidence for adaptive syndromes in key functional traits, which are correlated
with increasing home-site aridity. Further, early field trial results suggest that local
adaptation may be context dependent and related to the population structure of the species,
suggesting that local sources can be best but not always. These early findings are refining
the assumptions of our species and provenance choice models and helping to guide future
restoration projects.
● Hydrowood – Taking underwater harvesting from an idea to commercialisation (D
Crook, SFM Forest Management 2016):
There is estimated to be around 300 million trees worldwide submerged in dams
constructed during the 1950s through to the 1970s for the creation of hydroelectric schemes
and water storage. The Hydro dams in Tasmania fit into this global pattern. There remain
large areas of untapped forest resource submerged within the Hydro dams of Tasmania. The
success of this project can be brought down to several key aspects of creating and
delivering new technologies: (a) Always be willing to ask questions, we were often told it is
not possible but we always asked “Why?”; (b) Utilising great people within the company
(SFM Environmental Solutions Pty Ltd), allowing us to use the skills and systems already
found within SFM that were transferable to the project; (c) Recruiting people to the
Hydrowood team that fitted the culture of the company and filled in the knowledge and
skill set gaps; (d) Developing key working relationships with suppliers and manufacturers
in Tasmania, and where possible, giving them ownership of their part of the project and
therefore the drive to make it successful. After a 15 month build time, the operation started
in November 2015 and now runs on a 7 day/week roster recovering approximately one load
of timber per day, of varying products. The wood is sold to customers as a certified product
and chain of custody will enable the story to be passed along with each log. The salvaged
timber has unique properties that drive high end timber sales. Particular defects celebrate
the story that each one of these logs has to tell.
● Existing and potential uses of eucalypt plantation wood (G Nolan, University of
Tasmania, 2016):
New research is aimed at developing and testing technologies to support development of
the timber industry through the sustainable use of wood and timber products, especially in
State of the forests Tasmania 2017 142
the built environment. The research focuses on the potential use of Tasmania’s (and
Australia’s) plantation hardwood resource for a range of timber and other solid wood
products. Sustainable development requires increased reliance on renewable resources and
economic withdrawal from non-renewable ones. Renewable resources are those that return
to their previous stock levels after exploitation, by natural processes of growth or
replenishment. Organisms, such as trees, are renewable resources that regenerate and
regrow to provide valuable materials such as wood.
Buildings consume significant resources in their construction and operation. One strategy
for supporting sustainable development is to optimise the use of renewable resources in
making and operating buildings. Using wood is one answer. Trees absorb CO2 during
photosynthesis, store carbon in woody tissue and give off oxygen. Carbon stored in the tree
is retained in lasting wood products. Also, using timber or wood products instead of other
materials can also reduce environmental impacts eg. through reduced energy usage.
Tasmania has three major wood resources: native forests, and softwood plantations, and
hardwood plantations. Most of this hardwood resource is Shining Gum (E. nitens) grown in
unthinned and unprunned stands for fibre and likely to produce little conventional sawlog.
Most is exported either as chips or as peeler logs. With the viability of fibre markets for this
plantation hardwood resource being re-evaluated, the research is focussed on attempting to
recover sawn or veneered solid wood products in support of alternative, sustainable markets
of the future. University of Tasmania’s School of Architecture and Design has recently
been involved in modular timber construction and the use of cross-laminated timber (CLT)
in multistorey residential building in Tasmania.
● Engineered wood products from plantations and regrowth forests (E Rolley, Ta Ann
Tasmania, 2016):
Much has been spoken of the ‘Sleeping Forest Giant’ which is the production potential of
Tasmania’s privately owned forests. The private forest estate in Tasmania is dominated by
the large, mostly foreign owned hardwood and softwood plantation assets. Most of these
hardwood plantations have been established and managed for short rotation pulpwood
production. The larger industrial plantings are supplemented with smaller private plantation
holdings, some of which are pruned, and extensive areas of private regrowth native forests.
As the average log diameters from Tasmanian wood production forests have come down in
recent years, the commercial priority to ‘think thin’ and to peel rather than saw smaller
diameter logs for high value recovery has been realised. With the publicly owned forests
increasingly committed to conservation priorities, stronger opportunities have emerged for
private forests to become important competitive suppliers to local processers.
Ta Ann Tasmania has taken a leading role in peeling younger regrowth and plantation logs
to produce veneers and panel products for a variety of national and international markets.
The investment in modern peeling and plywood manufacture offers opportunities for
private forest growers to become suppliers to modern processing facilities with final
products focused on emerging engineered wood product markets.
The active and targeted research within permanent timber production zone land has delivered
improved methods of forest management and led to a transfer of knowledge and adoption of
new approaches within private forests. These practices have supported ongoing investment in
innovative systems, technology and skill enhancement along the logistic, processing and
market supply and management chains. A carbon flux tower in the Warra Long Term
Ecological Research Site has enabled the monitoring of changes in the exchange of greenhouse
Table 6.3.b.1 Facilities available in public forests for recreation and tourism activities –as at 30 June 2016
FACILITY/ACTIVITY Permanent Timber Production Zone land
National parks and reserves
Disabled Access 3 2941
Information/Visitor Centre 2 31
Toilets 34 331
Gas Barbecue 4 291a
Wood Barbecue 20 167
Picnic Shelter 12 101
Picnic Area 9 728
Fireplace 0 NSR
Boat Ramp 42 28
Lookout (Platform) 3 126
Short Walk 7 Included in day walks
Day Walk 2 5113
Overnight Walk 0 2104
Camping Area (Vehicle Access) 3 1305
Camping Area (Foot Access) 40 155
Caravan Site 1 25
Accommodation (Walkers Huts) 0 576
Accommodation Cabins 1 427
Self-Guided Interpretation 0 72
Guided Interpretation 1 nd7a
Interpretation Booths 3 72
Wildlife Observation Hides 0 3
Education 18 NSR
Cultural Heritage9 1 40
Mountain Bike Riding10 8 310
Trail Bike Riding11 - 12
Recreational Vehicle Driving12 6 25
Horse Riding 7 4
Boating 0 35
State of the forests Tasmania 2017 151
FACILITY/ACTIVITY Permanent Timber Production Zone land
National parks and reserves
Canoeing 1 35
Fishing 0 NSR 15
Hang Gliding 1 1
Playground Equipment 0 3
Skiing (Ski Fields With Facilities) 0 2
Special Events NSR nd
Licensed Tourism Businesses 1 26316
nd – no data available NSR – data not separately reported
1 PWS – number of locations/sites state-wide where there is disabled access
1a PWS – includes 11 gas barbecues and 18 electric
2 PWS – includes Day Use Comfort and Day Use Basic Categorised Sites
3 PWS – 850 km day walks
4 PWS – 1040 km overnight walks (includes some duplication with day walks)
5 PWS – includes formal camping areas and camping areas as small as one site
6 PWS – includes ‘easy access’ huts and bush walkers huts
7 PWS managed
7a PWS – commercial guided walks are licenced go wherever public has access. Most licenced guiding companies use W1, W2, T1 and T2 grade tracks.
8 FT – areas where educational material is available
9 Sites that showcase cultural heritage, which includes interpretation. For PWS this would include forested Historic Sites and the majority of the 72 interpretation booths since these usually include a cultural heritage component
10 FT/PWS – all public roads are available, FT figure includes areas where mountain bikes are commonly directed
11 FT/PWS all public roads are available for licensed riders and registered vehicles – figures represent tracks published in the Ride Around Tasmania booklet.
12 FT/PWS – all public roads are available for licensed drivers and registered vehicles. PWS figure refers to number of vehicle tracks published in the “Cruisin Without Brusin” booklet.
13 /14 FT – areas where users are commonly directed. PWS – specifically designated areas, people can use other trails/areas.
15 PWS – fishing is permitted in all reserves subject to Inland Fisheries regulations and any other management requirement, eg. drinking water catchment protection
16 Includes leases and licences
In the five years to 2015–16, the following visitor services were undertaken by the Parks and
Wildlife Service in forested reserves:
Cradle Mountain Lake St Clair National Park
o Master planning for the day use area and park entrance at Cradle Valley.
o Upgraded and maintained day-walk areas
Frenchmans Cap – major upgrade of the walking track under a partnership with Dick Smith.
State of the forests Tasmania 2017 152
South Coast Track – completed two years into the four-year $2 million upgrade. Priority
erosion control works were done on natural surface track, existing walking track
infrastructure was repaired and new track infrastructure built.
Mount Field National Park – upgraded Russell Falls track to wheel chair standard and
developed innovative World Heritage interpretation at the Mount Field Visitor Centre,
upgraded and maintained the track network.
Replacement of access bridges across the Meander River and Mother Cummings Rivulet
providing vehicle access to a range of popular walks, including the Meander Falls walking
track, one of Tasmania’s 60 Great Short Walks.
A new viewing platform was constructed at Dip Falls in the north-west, which provides an
elevated position from which to view the falls and enhance the visitor experience.
Ongoing development of mountain bike tracks and facilities, including in the Kate Reed
Nature Recreation Area and Trevallyn State Reserve (Launceston); in the Wellington Park
(Hobart); and in the Meehan Range Nature Recreation Area (Hobart).
Overall, in the past five years there has been an increase in the number of facilities provided by
the Parks and Wildlife Service for recreation and tourism, largely due to transfers from Forestry
Tasmania, as well as some major new developments. New assets have been provided and
others have been decommissioned. Substantial work has gone into upgrading, replacing and
maintaining existing assets. Following the massive floods in early 2016, major repairs and
replacement of visitor infrastructure commenced and is still in progress, especially in the north
of the state, but also on the east coast.
There were two significant sources of funding for PWS visitor infrastructure works:
1. Park Entry fees
2. Australian and Tasmanian Government project funding for the Three Capes Track
Current data for State forest and national parks and reserves are now documented under
established asset management systems.
With Federal Government funding, Environment Tasmania undertook a series of short walk
upgrades with interpretation in the Tasmanian Wilderness WHA and in forests in north-east
Tasmania.
Number of visits to recreational sites
This indicator provides information on the number of visits made to selected reserves (or
specific sites within parts of reserves).
The PWS manage over 800 parks and reserves in Tasmania. The PWS cannot monitor visitors
to all sites. The PWS maintain counts of visitors at 11 selected parks and reserves (called
“reference sites”) across the state. Information from the reference sites gives a general idea of
visitor trends generally.
Over the long-term, the underlying trend has been for visitor numbers to increase. However,
there have been periods of growth and decline:
Visitor numbers were growing before the first reporting period. Visitor numbers peaked in
the period between 2003 and 2005;
Visitor numbers plateaued throughout 2005–06 to 2008–09;
State of the forests Tasmania 2017 153
Visitor numbers declined to most reference sites from about 2009–10 to 2012 and into 2013;
Visitor numbers rebounded from 2012 and 2013 onwards – with increases occurring earlier
in some places, whilst there was a lag at other sites;
As at 2015–16, visitor numbers have increased across most reference sites, and – in some
cases – visitor numbers are at record levels.
Over the nearly 20-year period since the Tasmania Regional Forest Agreement was signed in
November 1997, the tourism industry has grown substantially in Tasmania (Table 6.3.b.2).
Visitors to Tasmania are often the major source of activity at most of the reference sites
monitored by the PWS. Visitor numbers to Tasmania have increased almost two-and-half
fold from 485 000 visitors in 1997–98 to over 1.168 million in 2015–16 (up 141%).
The other source of visitors to parks and reserves are Tasmanian residents. The Tasmanian
population has grown far more modestly (up 10% between 1997–98 and 2015–16)
compared to visitors coming to Tasmania. In 1997–98, for every one Tasmanian resident,
there was approximately one visitor to Tasmania that year – by 2015–16, this ratio had
grown to 2.25 visitors for every resident. This is a substantial shift in the source of visitors
to parks and reserves.
In summary, visitor numbers to the reference sites have grown during the same period, often
reaching new record levels of visitation. Most of the growth of visitor numbers in the reference
sites can be attributed to visitors to Tasmania.
State of the forests Tasmania 2017 154
Table 6.3.b.2 Visitors to selected parks and reserves (“reference sites”), visitors to Tasmania, and change in Tasmanian resident population, over the life of the Regional Forest Agreement (1997–98 to 2015–16)
Table 6.5.a.1 Forestry Sector employment in Tasmania compared to rest of Australia (for 12 months ending May 2016).
Sector Australia Tasmania Tasmania as % of
Australia
Employed total
(FTE)
Employed full-time
Employed part-time
Employed total
(FTE)
Employed full-time
Employed part-time
Employed Total:
Forestry 9 625 7200 2783 1500 1150 350 15.58%
Wood product manufacturing
82 525 69 350 13 300 1625 1525 300 1.97%
Pulp and paper manufacturing
12 750 10 775 2183 533 383 350 4.18%
Totals 104 900 87 325 18 267 3658 3058 1000 3.49%
Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics
Table 6.5.a.2 Percentage of Tasmania’s employed population working in the Forestry Sector
Total employed persons - Tasmania - ABS data (000’s)
May 2016 237.7
June 2016 235.9
July 2016 234.4
August 2016 235.3
Average of four previous months 235 827
Percentage of timber workers 1.55%
Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics
Table 6.5.a.2 shows that the average total number of employed persons in Tasmania, from May
2016 to August 2016, was 235 827. Based on an estimate of 3 658 FTE, the forestry sector
represented a total of 1.55% of all employed persons in Tasmania. This represents 0.71% of
the total Tasmanian population (Table 6.5.a.3).
The proportion of all employed persons in Tasmania employed in the forestry sector has
decreased when compared with ten years ago, when approximately 5% of the workforce was in
the forestry sector. However, it is remains a major employer in non-urban and regional
communities in Tasmania.
The most recent breakdown of employment in the forests sector by municipality was completed
in 2013 (J. Schirmer et al., 2014).
The changes in the forest industry since 2012, particularly in the plantation sector, have
resulted in both increased investment and employment opportunities.
State of the forests Tasmania 2017 170
Table 6.5.a.3 Percentage of Tasmania’s Forestry Workers of the Total Tasmanian Population
March quarter 2016 - Tasmania's total population 518 500
Percentage of forestry workers of the total population 0.71%
Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics
In common with other sectors, forest industry jobs are increasingly mechanised, with greater
emphasis on technical skills associated with that process of mechanisation.
Ascertaining the indirect employment dependent of the forestry sector in Tasmania is a difficult
task. The Independent Verification Group (O’Hara et al., 2013) reported an industry multiplier
of between 1.92 and 2.85. If a multiplier in the middle of this range were applied today, the
forestry sector is supporting an additional 8780 full-time equivalent jobs in other sectors of the
economy.
The forestry industry supports a range of service providers to the industry, such as suppliers,
manufacturers, and maintenance providers of logging and wood processing equipment, fuel and
fertiliser suppliers, financial and training service providers. Increased spending from wages
earned also creates and supports jobs in other sectors, including in retail, hospitality, education
and health. Without this indirect employment, many regional communities would be
disadvantaged both socially and economically.
Apiary Industry
There are no recent estimates of employment in the apiary industry.
There are four Tasmanian Apiary businesses that operate in this space: Australian Honey
Products, R. Stephens Apiary, Blue Hills Honey, and the Tasmanian Honey Company. For
most part, the remainder of the apiary industry is classified as a micro business, with
manufacturing being undertaken more as a hobby than a commercial operation. Apiarists
primarily operate in regional areas thereby providing direct employment in small centres and
indirect employment through an emerging tourist interest in the industry.
Reserve management, tourism and recreation
Direct employment in reserve forest management includes 297 full time equivalent (FTE) staff
in the Parks and Wildlife Management Service, as well as the people employed in the 263
businesses operating in reserves. Indirect employment includes staff of the many tourism
businesses operating outside reserves that rely on reserved forests as attractors for clients as
well as people working for suppliers of goods and services.
Much of this employment is in rural and regional areas around the state. The 2007
Sustainability indicators report indicated that the 1998–99 estimate of between 3550 and 4200
positions indirectly created as a result of visits to reserves managed by the Parks and Wildlife
Service was a significant underestimate due to the subsequent 50% growth in visitors. As
outlined in INDICATOR 6.3.b, visitation to reserves has increased within this reporting period.
No research has been undertaken to provide more up-to-date information.
References
Schirmer J, Dunn C, Loxton E (2014) Socio-economic impacts of forest industry change
Tasmanian forest industry employment and production, 2012–13. Tasmanian Government,
Hobart.
State of the forests Tasmania 2017 171
O’Hara T, Farley M, Smith B (2013) Key Socio-Economic Impacts in Transitioning to Wood
Supply Arrangements Detailed in the Tasmanian Forest Agreement (TFA). Independent
Verification Group, Hobart.
State of the forests Tasmania 2017 172
INDICATOR 6.5.b WAGE RATES AND INJURY RATES WITHIN THE FOREST
SECTOR
A sustainable industry will ensure high levels of workforce health and welfare and wage rates
comparable with national averages for occupations.
Wage rates
The Fair Work Ombudsman has developed the Timber Industry Award 2010 (Award) where
pay rates are updated from 1 July each subsequent year.
The Award is the minimum pay that employees in the timber industry must be paid for
undertaking a particular job. It is not necessarily what employees are paid whilst working in
those jobs, as employers may well pay above Award rates.
Table 6.5.b.1 Annual Salary-Wage rates in selected forestry occupations.
POSITION Wage-salary ($ per
annum) as at 30 June 2011
Wage-salary
($ per annum) as at 1 July 2016
Percentage Change
Timber Industry Award 2010 – General Timber Stream level 3
32 744 37 367 14.1%
Timber Industry Award 2010 – General Timber Stream level 2
31 744 35 989 13.4%
Tasmanian State Service Band 6 Level 1-1-2 (Forest Policy Officer – General Stream)
76 016 86 230 13.4%
Senior Ranger (Parks and Wildlife Service) Band 5, Level 3 (2008 Tasmanian State Service Award)
83 888 (includes 15% loading)
93 629 (includes15% loading)
12%
Regional Manager (Parks and Wildlife) Band 8, Level 4 (2008 Tasmanian State Service Award)
106 612 117 979 11%
There is no data available that collates the total value of wages and salaries paid to Tasmanians
working in the timber industry. The ABS ceased producing this data in the 2006–07 financial
year.
The Tasmanian Department of Treasury and Finance summarises the ABS Cat No 6302.0 when
this data is released. For May 2016, the average weekly ordinary time earnings (AWOTE) for
a full-time person was $1337 in Tasmania. This remains the lowest of all jurisdictions and 88.2%
of the national average level. The Tasmanian AWOTE is consistent with wage data for other
regional centres in Australia.
Injury rates
WorkSafe Tasmania reports injury frequency rates for Tasmanian industries against ANZSIC
industry codes.
The injury frequency rate (also known as all claims frequency rate) is measured as the number
of workers’ compensation claims reported in any given year divided by the number of hours
worked during the same year, multiplied by one million.
State of the forests Tasmania 2017 173
The injury frequency rate is calculated using data from WorkSafe Tasmania’s statistical
collections relating to workers’ compensation. As the data covers only those injuries that result
in a claim being lodged by a worker for compensation, the frequency rate of injuries may be
underestimated.
Table 6.5.b.2 provides data on the injury frequency rate for selected forest industry sectors for
the periods 2011–12 to 2015–16.
Table 6.5.b.2 Injury frequency rate (number of claims per million hours worked)
ANZSIC Code
Description of industry 2011–12 2012–13 2013–14 2014–15 2015–16
152 Converted Paper Product Manufacturing
7.03 15.02 0.00 6.69 57.71
30 Forestry and Logging 15.03 23.82 26.83 28.99 17.82
141 Log Sawmilling and Timber Dressing
55.63 34.76 17.56 44.32 48.16
149 Other Wood Product Manufacturing
59.88 46.79 36.43 37.90 36.63
151 Pulp, Paper and Paperboard Manufacturing
42.74 23.30 22.45 22.76 19.30
Source: WorkSafe Tasmania
From Table 6.5.b.2, it may be seen that the general trend for the previous five years is that
injury frequency rates in the timber industry have been reducing.
Converted Paper Product Manufacturing has had a significant increase in the injury frequency
rate over the previous five year period, rising from 7.03 in 2011–12, to 57.71 in 2015–16.
Forestry and Logging industry statistics demonstrate a slight increase in the number of
incidents over the last five years. However, it is noted that there has been an almost 40%
decrease for the period from 2014–15 to 2015–16.
State of the forests Tasmania 2017 174
Figure 6.5.b.1 Injury frequency rate trends
Source: WorkSafe Tasmania
Figure 6.5.b.1 shows the injury frequency rate over the past 16 years. Trend-lines indicate the
frequency rates have experienced a downward trend since the early 2000s. Some sectors have,
however, experienced more recent increases. Anecdotally, indications are that stricter
reporting requirements have led to an increased reporting of incidents, rather than the rate of
incidents themselves increasing.
Fatality rates
WorkSafe Tasmania have reported no fatalities in any of the industry groups reported above
over the previous five years.
-
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
120.0
140.0
Injury Frequency Rates over a 16 year period (with moving average trendline)
Converted Paper Product ManufacturingForestry and LoggingLog Sawmilling and Timber DressingOther Wood Product ManufacturingPulp, Paper and Paperboard ManufacturingMoving Average - Converted Paper Product ManufacturingMoving Average - Forestry and LoggingMoving Average - Log Sawmilling and Timber Dressing
State of the forests Tasmania 2017 175
INDICATOR 6.5.c RESILIENCE OF FOREST DEPENDENT COMMUNITIES TO
CHANGING SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS
This indicator provides a measure of the extent to which communities are able to respond and
adapt to change successfully.
The third five-yearly review of the implementation of the Regional Forest Agreement for the
period 2007–2012 highlights that the Tasmanian forest industry is an important contributor to
the State, and regional communities in particular. The forestry sector in Tasmania has been
particularly affected over the last five years by significant events, including a persistently high
Australian dollar, a structural reduction in production native forests and the restructure of the
industrial plantation estate, following collapse of plantation management businesses.
Schirmer et al. (2014) highlight some of the impacts on employment experienced during 2011
to 2013, which was a particularly difficult period for the forest industry in Tasmania.
Between 2011 and 2013, the native forest sector experienced a 31.2% decline in employment.
The hardwood plantation sector was relatively stable during 2011–2013, after employment fell
rapidly between 2008–2011, and employment in the softwood plantation sector experienced
very slight growth during 2011–2013, although substantially less than in 2008.
An indication of the local impacts of the forest industry downturn can be seen through the loss
of direct forestry jobs from 2008 to 2013 at a Local Government Area (LGA) level:
Launceston – 484 jobs lost
Dorset – 365 jobs lost
Burnie – 322 jobs lost
West Tamar – 315 jobs lost; and
Meander Valley – 311 jobs lost.
Another way of measuring the impact on small communities is to examine the proportion of
forestry jobs lost as a percentage of all jobs in an LGA. From 2008–2013:
9.4% of all jobs were lost in Glamorgan – Spring Bay LGA
8.9% of jobs were lost in the Dorset LGA
7.4% of jobs were lost in the Southern Midlands LGA
6.2% of jobs were lost in the Central Highlands LGA; and
5.0% of jobs were lost in Kentish.
The LGAs that have experienced the greatest loss of employment as a result of the decline in
the forest industry are primarily rural LGAs with smaller populations and employment bases.
Where these LGAs are heavily dependent on forestry employment, these job losses have a
significant impact on the general working community. This is further evidenced by the
economic multiplier (between 1.92 and 2.85) each forestry job is understood to have on other
related and non-related sectors of the economy (O’Hara et al, 2013).
The last two to three years has seen a marked increase in employment in the sector, highlighted
in INDICATOR 6.5.a. The early phase of this recovery is captured by Schirmer, where
businesses in the forest industry were reporting cautious optimism about their future. A
majority of respondents believed they would increase capital expenditure, and increase profits.
Approximately 40% of respondents indicated that they would consider hiring more staff to
cope with the expected increase in demand for forestry products in the future.
State of the forests Tasmania 2017 176
The downturn in the forestry sector over the last decade has resulted in a wholesale restructure
of the forest industry, and forest businesses. These businesses are now in a position to capitalise
on the improved trading conditions that have emerged over the last two years. This can be
expected to have material long-term benefits for the regional communities that still have a large
dependency on the forestry sector, in spite of the undoubted hardship that has been experienced
over the last five years.
References
Schirmer J, Dunn C, Loxton E (2014) Socio-economic impacts of forest industry change
Tasmanian forest industry employment and production, 2012–13. Tasmanian Government,
Hobart.
O’Hara T, Farley M, Smith B (2013) Key Socio-Economic Impacts in Transitioning to Wood
Supply Arrangements Detailed in Tasmanian Forest Agreement (TFA). Independent
Verification Group, Hobart.
State of the forests Tasmania 2017 177
INDICATOR 6.5.d RESILIENCE OF FOREST DEPENDENT INDIGENOUS
COMMUNITIES TO CHANGING SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC
CONDITIONS
INDICATOR 6.5.d provides a measure of the extent to which Indigenous communities are able
to respond and adapt to change successfully. Communities with a high economic and cultural
dependence on forest and forest-related industries should be sustainable into the future. This
indicator should also take into account that the use of forests provides/improves access to
resources for survival and the maintenance of traditional values and cultural heritage.
No Tasmanian Aboriginal community is highly or directly dependent on forests and/or forest
products and/or services and therefore changes to forests will have limited impact on their
social and economic status. However, the Tasmanian Government, public agencies and private
forest managers recognise the importance of forests and forest sites containing cultural objects
and sites of significance to Aboriginal communities and engage these communities in
management planning and operations. For example in 2015 the Forest Practice Authority
worked with Aboriginal Heritage Tasmania and members of an Aboriginal community in
Launceston to run three training courses for foresters in Tasmania, and forestry companies
consult with Aboriginal communities at the advanced planning stage regarding operations that
may impact Aboriginal heritage.
Forestry Tasmania has implemented two policies to recognise and support the Tasmanian
Aboriginal people as traditional owners of permanent timber production zone land and the
significance of heritage, including places, objects and stories, for maintaining continuous links
with that land.
Forestry Tasmania’s Aboriginal Heritage Policy provides the principles by which Forestry
Tasmania manages places of Aboriginal heritage. Under this policy, and in collaboration with
the Aboriginal community, Forestry Tasmania aims to:
foster positive and respectful relationships with the Aboriginal community and relevant
statutory bodies and agencies to inform and guide forest planning and management
activities
identify, protect and manage places of Aboriginal cultural significance in accordance with
the Aboriginal Relics Act 1975, the Forest Practices Code 2015, and the Australian
ICOMOS Burra Charter 2013
permit access by the Aboriginal community to land and traditional cultural materials where
safety and environmental limitations allow
explore and promote participation and economic opportunities for the Aboriginal
community to manage and maintain their heritage, including employment of Aboriginal
community members; and
develop and implement appropriate training to assist staff to gain an awareness of
Aboriginal culture and allow for identification of Aboriginal heritage.
State of the forests Tasmania 2017 178
CRITERION 7: LEGAL, INSTITUTIONAL AND ECONOMIC FRAMEWORK FOR FOREST CONSERVATION AND SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT
This criterion and associated indicators relate to the overall policy framework that guides and
directs the conservation and sustainable management of forests. It includes the broader societal
conditions and processes which are often external to the forest but which support efforts to
conserve, maintain or enhance one or more of the conditions, attributes, functions and benefits
captured in criteria 1–6.
INDICATOR 7.1.a EXTENT TO WHICH THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK SUPPORTS
THE CONSERVATION AND SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT
OF FORESTS
This indicator reports on the evolution of the legal framework for management of forest on all
land tenures in Tasmania, environmental management systems and community perspectives. It
also addresses the extent to which transparency and public participation in policy and decision-
making for the continuous improvement of forest management is ensured.
The Tasmanian Regional Forest Agreement (RFA) is a 20-year bilateral agreement between the
Tasmanian and Australian governments signed on 8 November 1997. It is a framework
document that is underpinned by Tasmania’s forest management system. The RFA’s key
principles are:
ecologically sustainable forest management (the management of all land tenures to maintain
the overall capacity of forests to provide goods; protect biodiversity; and protect the full
suite of forest values at the regional level)
certainty for conservation of the environment and heritage values (through the
establishment and maintenance of a Comprehensive, Adequate and Representative reserve
system); and
certainty of resource access for the forestry industry.
Under the Tasmanian RFA, the Tasmanian and Australian governments agreed to establish a
Comprehensive, Adequate and Representative (CAR) reserve system for forests, which meets
the national agreed criteria to ensure long-term conservation and protection of Tasmania’s
forest biodiversity, old-growth forest and wilderness values.
The CAR reserve system was built on Tasmania’s pre-existing reserve network, through the
addition of new reserves on both public and private land. The reserve system has been further
extended through a range of programs and agreements. Those relevant to forest management
include:
the 2005 Tasmanian Community Forest Agreement
the 2010–2013 Tasmanian Forest Agreement process
the Crown Land Assessment and Classification Project; and
various private land conservation programs.
The reserve system extends over land, inland waters, estuaries and marine areas and includes
both public and private land.
State of the forests Tasmania 2017 179
The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (the EPBC Act), is
Australia’s main federal environmental legislation. The EPBC Act is designed to protect and
manage matters of national environmental significance. However, due to the comprehensive
nature of the Tasmanian RFA and the Commonwealth fulfilling its duties in relation to the RFA
for assessment of environmental impacts prior to the RFA, virtually all forestry operations
conducted in accordance with the RFA are exempt from the assessment and approval
requirements of Part 3 of the EPBC Act.
The Policy for Maintaining a Permanent Native Forest Estate is in place to ensure the
maintenance of the native forest resource base for all its various conservation, production and
amenity values by placing limits on broadscale clearance and conversion of native forest in
Tasmania.
The policy regulates how native forests are to be maintained as they are managed for a variety
of uses. The maintenance of native forests refers to the limitations on clearance and conversion
of native forests to other lands uses or non-native vegetation covers.
The policy was first issued in 1997, in accordance with the Tasmanian RFA. The policy is
implemented through the Forest Practices Act 1985 and is periodically reviewed and amended.
The Forest Practices Act 1985 is designed to ensure that forest operations are conducted in an
environmentally acceptable manner on public and private forest. The Act forms part of a
broader legislative and policy framework that provides a basis for sustainable forest
management in Tasmania.
The Forest Practices Act 1985 also includes the provision for private timber reserves (PTRs),
which are a means by which private land holders are able to ensure the security of their forest
resources without requiring permits according to the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act
1993.
At June 2006, 421 709 ha of private property were covered by PTRs, which had increased to
471 255 ha at June 2011, and decreased to 442 623 ha at June 2016. These figures represent
approximately 46%, 44% and 40% of the total area of private forests within the estate in those
respective years. Part of the decline in area under PTRs since 2011 can be attributed to the
collapse of a number of managed investment schemes (MIS) and the resulting lack of
commitment by some landowners to ongoing plantation forestry, with land reverting to non
forestry use.
The Forest Practices Code (the Code) was released in 1987 and has been updated in 1993,
2000 and 2015. It provides a practical set of guidelines and standards for forest management,
timber harvesting and other forest operations. It provides for the protection of environmental
values during forest operations, in particular: soils; geomorphology; visual landscape; water
quality and flow; flora, fauna, genetic resources and cultural heritage.
The National Parks and Reserves Management Act 2002 is the principal Act that sets out the
management objectives for conservation reserves declared under the Nature Conservation Act
2002. On nature conservation reserves there are legislated management objectives for reserve
classes, statutory management plans that require formal public consultation, input from the
statutory National Parks and Wildlife Advisory Council, independent review of responses to
public comment on draft management plans by the Tasmanian Planning Commission,
adherence to the Tasmanian Reserve Management Code of Practice and development
applications subject to detailed environmental impact assessment processes.
A new management plan was approved for one nature reserve and a management statement
was finalised for one reserve during the reporting period 2011–2016. The draft of the new
State of the forests Tasmania 2017 180
Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area Management Plan was released for public
comment and the plan was prepared for final approval. Work continued on a general
management plan, covering approximately 700 reserves around the state. The proportion of the
area of reserves covered by approved management plans dropped to around 60% due to the
increase in reserved area.
The Tasmanian Forests Agreement Act 2013 provided legislative backing to the 2012
Tasmanian Forest Agreement, negotiated by key forestry stakeholders, and created the concept
of permanent timber production zone land which replaced ‘multiple-use forest’, and which
describes those areas of forest under the management of Forestry Tasmania. It also designated
500 000 ha of permanent timber production zone land as Future Reserve Land and prohibited
native forest timber harvesting from that land. Approximately 95 700 ha of Future Reserve
Land has since been proclaimed as reserves under the Nature Conservation Act 2002, 90% of
which is coincident with the 2013 extensions to the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage
Area.
The Forestry (Rebuilding the Forest Industry) Act 2014 purpose was to repeal the Tasmanian
Forests Agreement Act 2013 and to provide for the invigoration of the forest industry. The
main feature of the Act was the conversion of 399 000 ha of Future Reserve Land to Crown
Land, to be known as future potential production forest land. The administration of the future
potential production forest land was transferred from Forestry Tasmania to the Department of
Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment.
The Forest Management Act 2013 repealed the Forestry Act 1920, and provides for the future
management of the permanent timber production zone land by Forestry Tasmania as the Forest
Manager. It reinforces that the Forest Manager must manage the permanent timber production
zone land consistent with the principles of forest management established under the Forest
Practices Code. It also declared approximately 221 000 ha of forest reserves to be either
regional reserves or conservation areas under the Nature Conservation Act 2002.
A list of the main legislation relevant to sustainable forest management in Tasmania is
provided in Table 7.1.a.1.
State of the forests Tasmania 2017 181
Table 7.1.a.1 Main legislation relevant to sustainable forest management in Tasmania, as of 30/06/2016
AGENCY Main legislation Purpose Tenures to which
legislation applies
Forestry Tasmania Forest Management Act 2013)
Empowers Forestry Tasmania to manage and control PTPZ land, and to undertake forest operation on that land for the purpose of selling wood products
PTPZ land
Forestry Tasmania and Crown Land Services
Forestry (Rebuilding the Forest Industry) Act 2014
Establishes the timeline and framework for harvesting on PTPZ land by Forestry Tasmania and management of FPPF land by Crown Land Services.
PTPZ and FPPF land
Forest Practices Authority
Forest Practices Act 1985
Establishes the forest practices system to provide for the sustainable management of forests on any land subject to forest operations.
Provides for publication, enforcement and review of the Forest Practices Code.
Provides for the establishment of private timber reserves on private land to provide security of long term forestry use for land owners.
All tenures
DPIPWE Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994
Establishes the “duty of care” principle to prevent or minimise environmental harm.
Defines potentially harmful activities requiring assessment and approval.
Identifies notification requirements for environmental incidents.
All tenures
Department of Justice
Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993
Establishes the Resource Management and Planning System for Tasmania. Forest practices on public land and forest operations on private timber reserves are exempt from the Act.
All tenures
DPIPWE Threatened Species Protection Act 1995
Provides for the conservation management of scheduled threatened species of flora and fauna.
All tenures
DPIPWE Aboriginal Relics Act 1975
Provides for the identification and protection of all Aboriginal relics (sites).
All tenures
DPIPWE Historic Cultural Heritage Act 1995
Identifies, assesses and protects historic (post settlement) cultural heritage.
All tenures
Tasmania Fire Service
Fire Service Act 1979
Provides for the control and use of fire in the urban and rural environment.
All tenures
DPIPWE Crown Lands Act 1976
Makes provisions with respect to the management, sale, and disposal of the lands of the Crown.
Crown Lands
Department of Premier and Cabinet
Aboriginal Lands Act 1995 (as amended in 1999)
Promotes reconciliation with the Tasmanian Aboriginal community by granting to Aboriginal people certain parcels of land of historic or cultural significance.
All tenures
Private Forests Tasmania
Private Forests Act 1994
Promotes the development of private forestry in Tasmania.
Private land
DPIPWE Forestry Rights Registration Act 1990
Provides for the registration on land title of certain forestry rights.
Any land with title
Forestry Tasmania Timber Promotion Act 1970
Establishes the Tasmanian Timber Promotion Board to promote the use of wood, in Tasmania.
Provides for the various categories of reserves. -
Department of Justice
Public Land (Administration and Forests) Act 1991 and Resource Planning and Development Commission Act 1997
Provides authority to conduct public land use inquiries, approve planning schemes and report on State policies.
Public land
DPIPWE Nature Conservation Act 2002
Regulates the conservation and protection of flora, fauna and geological diversity within Tasmania; classifies reserved lands in Tasmania and establishes values & objectives for each reserve class and provides for conservation covenants and reservation of private lands.
Sets out the processes and criteria for compensation where a forest practices plan has been refused because of the presence of threatened native vegetation communities or threatened species.
All tenures
DPIPWE National Parks and Reserves Management Act 2002
Provides for the management of reserves under the National Parks and Reserves Management Act 2002 according to management objectives for each reserve class.
Reserves declared under the Nature Conservation Act 2002
DPIPWE Water Management Act 1999
Provides for the management of groundwater and surface water.
All tenures
DPIPWE Weed Management Act 1999
Provides for the management of weed control. All tenures
State Growth Mineral Resources Development Act 1995
Provides for mineral exploration and fossicking. Private and some types of public land
DPIPWE Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals (Control of use) Act 1995
Prevents restricted chemicals being used without a permit, stipulates labelling requirements.
All tenures
State Growth Forestry (Fair Contracts Codes) Act 2001
Provides for the approval of codes to improve the fairness of contracts within the forest industry, and to give such codes legal effect.
All tenures
Workplace Standards Tasmania
Work Health and Safety Act 2012
Provides for the health and safety of person employed, engaged and affected by industry.
All tenures
Commonwealth of Australia
Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act
Directly applies to all non-forestry operations. The RFA provides a means of implementation of the EPBC Act provisions through application of the Forest Practices Act, the Forest Practices Code and “agreed procedures” on threatened species management between DPIPWE and the Forest Practices Authority.
Gives effect to certain obligations of the Commonwealth, to certain aspects of the National Forest Policy Statement, and created the Forest and Wood Products Council
All tenures
In addition to the formal legislation, the Tasmanian and Australian Governments have a
number of regulatory instruments and policies that support sustainable forest management;
these are listed in Table 7.1.a.2.
Table 7.1.a.2 Main policies relating to forest management and conservation
AGENCY Main policy Purpose Tenures to which policy applies
Australian Government
National Forest Policy Statement 1992
Provides a framework for the future management of forests. It has 11 broad national goals.
-
Australian and Tasmanian Government
1997 Tasmanian Regional Forest Agreement
A legally binding 20 year agreement, with a five yearly review period, that applies to all of Tasmania and it provides specific actions which create a balance between the environmental, social, economic and heritage values that forests provide.
All tenures
Australian Government
Plantations for Australia: the 2020 Vision
Seeks to enhance regional wealth creation and international competitiveness through a sustainable increase in Australia's plantation resources.
All tenures
Australian and Tasmanian Government
2005 Tasmanian Community Forest Agreement
Is a supplement to, and builds on, the RFA by increasing the reserve system and revitalising the timber industry.
All tenures
State Growth Policy for Maintaining a Permanent Native Forest Estate
Sets threshold levels for the maintenance of a permanent native forest estate by forest communities at both the bioregional and state levels to meet one of the requirements of the Tasmanian RFA.
All tenures
Tasmanian Planning Commission
State policy on the Protection of Agricultural Land 2009
Aims to foster sustainable agriculture in Tasmania by ensuring the continued productive capacity of the state's agricultural land resource.
Private agricultural lands
Australian Government
Australia’s Strategy for the National Reserve System 2009–2030
Provides national guidance to enhance establishment, planning, management, monitoring and community partnerships for the National Reserve System.
All tenures
Australian Government
Burra Charter 2013 Defines the basic principles and procedures to be followed in the conservation of Australian heritage places
A national strategy for the conservation, sustainable use and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from Australia’s biodiversity
The legal forest management and conservation framework in Tasmania provides a high level of
checks and balances. As well as the regulatory requirements imposed on other land uses,
forestry activities must comply with additional standards required under the Forest Practices
Code and associated planning tools.
State of the forests Tasmania 2017 184
On nature conservation reserves the following mechanisms are in place:
legislated management objectives for reserve classes
statutory management plans that require formal public consultation input from the statutory
National Parks and Wildlife Advisory Council
independent review of responses to public comment on draft management plans by the
Tasmanian Planning Commission
adherence to the Tasmanian Reserve Management Code of Practice; and
development applications subject to detailed environmental impact assessment processes.
A new management plan was approved for one nature reserve. A draft management plan for the
Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area was released for public comment, covering seven
national parks and 45 other reserves, nearly 25% of Tasmania. Work continued on the General
Management Plan (GMP), to cover all reserves without a statutory management plan
(approximately 750). The foundation GMP document was revised following an internal two
year trial and natural values significance reporting was developed for the reserve estate. The
proportion of area of reserves covered by approved management plans has dropped to
approximately 60%, due to the increase in reserved area.
There are three primary elements to achieving ecologically sustainable forest management in
Tasmania's approach:
1. the Forest Practices Code to ensure the achievement of sustainable forestry operations
2. the development of a comprehensive, adequate and representative (CAR) forest reserve
system to securely protect nature conservation values
3. the maintenance of a permanent native forest estate to ensure that we maintain the resource
base for all its various production, conservation and amenity values.
The Policy for Maintaining a Permanent Native Forest Estate specifically addresses the third
of these elements by ensuring that Tasmania maintains a permanent forest estate that comprises
areas of native forest managed on a sustainable basis both within formal reserves and within
multiple-use forests across public and private land.
The Policy is implemented by the Forest Practices Authority through the Authority's
consideration of applications for approval of Forest Practices Plans under the Forest Practices
Act 1985.
In the period 2011–2016 the Policy for Maintaining a Permanent Native Forest Estate was
revised on a number of occasions. The revisions mainly included clarifying terminology and
implementation mechanisms. The 2015 revision included an invitation from the Tasmanian
Government to members of the public to comment on the Policy for Maintaining a Permanent
Native Forest Estate, and any issues relevant to the ongoing implementation of the Policy.
Following the completion of the public consultation period, all submissions were assessed and
considered along with other relevant information. Review recommendations were expected to
be put to Government in mid–2016, but due to the 2 July 2016 Federal election, completion of
the review has been extended to 1 July 2017.
Consistent with the Policy for Maintaining a Permanent Native Forest Estate process to date,
the timeframe for implementation of bans on broad scale clearing and conversion of native
forest on private land has been extended for the same period (to 1 July 2017), pending
State of the forests Tasmania 2017 185
completion of the Policy for Maintaining a Permanent Native Forest Estate review. The
Policy was updated in June 2016 to reflect these changes pending the completion of the review.
None of the key biodiversity provisions, including existing limits to clearing on private land,
have been altered by this extension of the Policy for Maintaining a Permanent Native Forest
Estate.
The scope of the legislation which provides for sustainable forest management is outlined
below. Tasmania has adopted the Montreal Process Criteria and Indicators to provide a
framework for assessment of current Tasmanian processes. Within this framework, which is
also used for national reporting, a qualitative assessment of each parameter is made in Table
7.1.a.3.
State of the forests Tasmania 2017 186
Table 7.1.a.3 Scope of the ecologically sustainable forest management (ESFM) provisions in legal frameworks
ESFM aspect – extent to which the legal framework provides for:
Permanent Timber
Production Zone land
Nature conservation
reserves
Other Crown land
Private land
Forest management planning and review:
Accountable management body Y Y Y N
Dispute resolution process Y Y Y Y
Forest management planning Y Y Y Y
Management review Y Y Y P
Planning for environmental values Y Y Y Y
Planning review Y Y Y P
Policy review Y Y Y P
Property rights Y Y Y Y
Periodic assessment of forest related resources
Y Y Y Y
Public participation:
Legislation requires broad based public consultation for forest related policy
Y Y Y Y
Legislation requires broad based public consultation to develop forest related management plans
Y Y Y P
Legislation requires publication of specific forest-related information
Y Y Y Y
Right to information legislation allows public access to information related to forests
Y Y Y P
Indigenous participation:
Formal Indigenous participation in management
P P P P
Indigenous participation in planning P P P P
Recognition of cultural values Y Y Y Y
Has mechanisms to recognise the customary and traditional rights of Indigenous peoples
Y Y Y Y
Traditional management on relevant public land (eg joint management/ co management)
P P P NA
Access to forests for traditional activities P P P P
Access to Indigenous cultural heritage on forest land
P P P P
Allows for the performance of traditional practices
P P P P
State of the forests Tasmania 2017 187
ESFM aspect – extent to which the legal framework provides for:
Permanent Timber
Production Zone land
Nature conservation
reserves
Other Crown land
Private land
Allows for the protection of Indigenous intellectual property
P P P P
Other aspects
Recognition of scientific values Y Y Y P
Recognition of voluntary reserves on private land
NA NA NA Y
Regulation of forest clearing Y Y Y Y
Resource assessment Y Y Y P
Secure land tenure Y Y Y Y
SFM an explicit objective Y Y Y P
Ratings:
Y = Yes. The legal framework exists with ESFM provisions that are fairly comprehensive;
P = Partly. The legal framework or mechanism exists but does not cover all ESFM aspects or is limited in its application;
N = No. The legal framework does not exist or include ESFM provisions.
NA = Not applicable
1. Access includes an ability to enter and undertake activities such as foraging, hunting, or ceremonial.
Based on data in Table 7.1.a.3, the framework for ecologically sustainable forest management
has been established at a high level for public land. The framework for private land is also
comprehensive, but slightly less than for public land. The majority of commercial private
forest managers have established systems which ensure compliance with legislation as an
integral management objective specified under independently certified ISO and EMS standards.
These organisations have also obtained or are seeking to obtain certification under the
Australian Forestry Standard (AFS) and/or the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC).
The extent of legislative requirements which apply best practice for a range of activities in a
way that provides for sustainable forest management are summarised in Table 7.1.a.4. Even
though there have been some legislative changes during the reporting period the ratings in the
table showed no change between 2011 and 2016.
State of the forests Tasmania 2017 188
Table 7.1.a.4 Legislative requirement to apply best practice for sustainable forest management activities by tenure category
PTPZ land Nature conservation
reserve
Other Crown land Private land
Activities 2011 2016 2011 2016
2011 2016
2011 2016
Access to the forest
Planning and siting roads
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Road design and construction
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Upgrading existing roads and tracks
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Rock quarries and gravel pits
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Bridge, causeway and ford construction
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Road maintenance Y Y Y Y Y Y P P
Harvesting
Design, planning and equipment
Y Y NA NA Y Y Y Y
Wet weather Y Y NA NA Y Y Y Y
Snig tracks and landings
Y Y NA NA Y Y Y Y
Water quality and stream protection
Y Y NA NA Y Y Y Y
Salvage operations Y Y NA NA Y Y Y Y
Steep country Y Y NA NA Y Y Y Y
Forest practices plans Y Y NA NA Y Y Y Y
Conservation of other values
Flora Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Fauna Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Rare or endangered species
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Landscape Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Archaeology (cultural heritage)
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
State of the forests Tasmania 2017 189
Geomorphology Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Care of soils Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Water quality and flow Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Forest establishment
Reforestation Y Y NA NA Y Y Y Y
Maintaining forests
Fire management Y Y Y Y Y Y P P
Pest, disease, weed control
Y Y Y Y Y Y N NP
Use of chemicals Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Thinning Y Y NA NA Y Y Y Y
Non-wood products / uses
Y Y Y Y Y Y P P
Apiary Y Y Y Y Y Y N N
Grazing Y Y Y Y Y Y N N
Recreation Y Y Y Y Y Y N N
Socio-economic
Occupational health and safety
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Rating
Y = Yes. There is a legislative requirement to apply best practice for this activity in this tenure category
P = Partly. There is a legislative requirement to apply best practice for this activity in this tenure but this requirement does not cover all aspects or is limited in its application.
N = No. There is no legislative requirement to apply best practice for this activity in this tenure.
NA = Not applicable
State of the forests Tasmania 2017 190
INDICATOR 7.1.b EXTENT TO WHICH THE INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK
SUPPORTS THE CONSERVATION AND SUSTAINABLE
MANAGEMENT OF FORESTS
This indicator reports the extent to which the institutional framework supports the conservation
and sustainable management of forests. It specifically looks at Tasmania’s commitment to
building community awareness, regional assessment and planning, and includes policy review
as an essential basis for continuous improvement of sustainable management of forests. The
Comprehensive, Adequate and Representative (CAR) reserve system for forests and the forest
practices system underpin the institutional framework in Tasmania. The maintenance of
appropriate levels of human resource skills, the enforcement of laws, regulations and guidelines
and the adoption of forest certification are mechanisms that can be utilised in demonstrating
Tasmania’s commitment to sustainable forest management.
The Comprehensive, Adequate and Representative Reserve System
Under the Tasmanian RFA, the Tasmanian and Australian Governments agreed to establish a
Comprehensive, Adequate and Representative (CAR) reserve system for forests, which meets
the national agreed criteria to ensure the long-term conservation and protection of Tasmania’s
forest biodiversity, old-growth forest and wilderness values.
The CAR reserve system was built on Tasmania’s pre-existing reserve network, through the
addition of new reserves on both public and private land. The reserve system has been further
extended through a range of programs and agreements. Those relevant to forest management
include:
the 2005 Tasmanian Community Forest Agreement
the 2010–13 Tasmanian Forest Agreement process
the Crown Land Assessment and Classification Project; and
various private land conservation programs.
The reserve system extends over land, inland waters, estuaries and marine areas and includes
both public and private land.
As at June 2016, the Tasmanian system of reserves on land comprised 3.41 million ha, 50.1%
of the land area of Tasmania and 58% (1.56 million ha) of its native forests. Reserved public
land comprised 3.26 million ha (of which 2.73 million ha is formal reserve). In addition there
were 149 000 ha of private land reserved, of which 107 000 are contained in perpetual reserves.
There were 792 land based reserves; 783 of these are managed by the Parks and Wildlife
Service.
A Tasmanian Reserve Estate spatial layer has been created by DPIPWE to be used as the
authoritative source of information on the extent, type and distribution of the Reserve system in
Tasmania. The business rules for compiling the Tasmanian reserve estate spatial layer have
been documented to ensure the layer is updated in a consistent manner and to provide users
with clear information on attributes of the Tasmanian reserve system.
state and national State of the Environment and State of the Forests Reports
the National Reserve System
Marine Protected Areas reporting; and
Government annual reports.
The Forest Practices System
The Tasmanian forest practices system has evolved over more than thirty years to become a
sophisticated, robust system which is applied across all tenures. The forest practices system is
based on a co-regulatory approach, combining self-management by the forest industry and
independent monitoring and enforcement by the FPA.
All Forest Practices Officers are trained and authorised by the FPA and they must comply with
the directions of the CFPO. Most are employed within the industry to plan, supervise and
monitor forest practices, although their responsibility under the Forest Practices Act 1985 is to
the FPA. Forest Practices Officers attend the location of each proposed FPP and undertake an
on-ground survey for natural and cultural values that may have been identified as part of the
desktop assessment.
The forest practices system aims to foster co-operation and communication among all
stakeholders, including the government, private landowners, the forest industry and the broader
community. There is an emphasis on planning, training, education and continuous
improvement.
Development and Maintenance of Skills
The requirement to develop and maintain essential skills is recognised by Tasmania’s forest
managers as underpinning the institutional framework necessary to support sustainable systems
and practices. These skills include relevant tertiary and technical training in forest practices,
operational competencies, safety, fire management and visitor services.
Ongoing support for continuing development of existing and new employees’ skills is
promoted through training opportunities across a wide range of disciplines. Opportunities are
provided through Tasmania’s public educational institutes (University of Tasmania, Skills
Tasmania and TasTAFE), training organisations (such as ForestWorks), Forest Practices
Authority (FPA) courses and informally by presentations and workshops including Forestry
Tasmania’s ‘lunch time talks’.
PWS is pro-active in sourcing opportunities for the provision of full qualifications (currently
approximately 40% of all employees) aligned to functional roles. Registered Training
Organisation partners include Tasmania Fire Service, Handa Training Solutions and TasTAFE.
In March 2016 the Arbre Forest Industries Training and Career Hub opened in Launceston.
The Hub is a non-profit organisation set up to provide training in forest harvesting, transport
and silviculture and to link potential employees with employers. It is overseen and managed by
a governing board whose representation includes Forico, Forestry Tasmania, Timberlands
Pacific, Norske Skog, Casegrande Lumber Pty Ltd and IFARM.
Table 7.1.b.1 lists major public non-legislative policies under which forest management
activities are undertaken on public and private land.
State of the forests Tasmania 2017 192
Table 7.1.b.1 Responsibilities and major policies of major organisations which have managed forests during all or part of the reporting period
Name of organisation
Responsibilities for forests (and tenure)
Major non-legislative policies relevant to the organisation
Private land
Gunns Limited18 Forests managed by Gunns Limited
Gunns Forest Management Statement
Gunns Sustainable Forest Management Policy
Gunns Environmental Policy
Gunns Permanent Native Forest Estate Policy
Norske Skog Forests managed by Norske Skog (Australia) Pty Ltd
Forest Management Plan
Chain of Custody Policy
Permanent Forest Estate Policy
Sustainable Forest Management Policy
Environment Policy
OHS Policy
Quality Commitment Policy
Forico Pty Ltd Eucalypt and pine plantations, native forests owned by New Forests Pty Ltd on ex- Gunns estate and joint ventures with independent private owners
Environmental Sustainability Policy
Work Health and Safety Policy
Chain of Custody Policy
Stakeholder Engagement Policy
RMS (ex FEA estate) iFarm (Forest Management)
Pentarch Pty Ltd (Harvesting)
Statement of Intent – Sustainable Forest Management
Statement of Intent – Stakeholder Engagement
Statement of Intent – Native Forest Management
Tasmanian Land Conservancy
Private land purchased for conservation purposes
formal management plan for each Reserve
Public land
Forestry Tasmania Permanent Timber Production Zone land
Sustainable Forest Management Policy
Sustainability Charter (Forest Management Plan) 2008
Forest Management Plan 2014
Forest Management Plan 2016
Occupational Health and Safety
Policy
Giant Tree Policy
Special Timbers Strategy
Rainforest Policy
Pesticide and Fertiliser Policy
Carbon Management Policy
Timberlands Pacific Pine plantations managed by Timberlands Pacific on behalf of New Forests
Fuel and Oil Policy
Safety and Environmental Policy
Standard Operating Procedures
18 Gunns Limited: a) receivers and managers were appointed on 25 September 2012: b) Liquidators were
appointed on 5 March 2013; c) Delisted from the Australian Stock Exchange on 30 August 2013.
State of the forests Tasmania 2017 193
Name of organisation
Responsibilities for forests (and tenure)
Major non-legislative policies relevant to the organisation
Norske Skog Forests managed by Norske Skog (Australia) Pty Ltd
Forest Management Plan
Chain of Custody Policy
Permanent Forest Estate Policy
Sustainable Forest Management Policy
Environment Policy
OHS Policy
Quality Commitment Policy
DPIPWE (Parks and Wildlife Service)
National parks and reserves (including the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area and parts of the Australian Convict Sites World Heritage Area)
Tasmanian Reserve Management Code of Practice, 2003
Management Plans for national parks and major reserves
Management Statements for selected smaller reserves
General Management Plan for reserves without specific plans
Environmental Risk Management Policy
Reserve Activity Assessment System
Fire Management Policy
Reserves Standards Framework Policy
DPIPWE – Crown Land Services
Future Potential Production Forest land
Tasmanian Reserve Management Code of Practice, 2003
Reserve Activity Assessment System
Environmental Risk Management Policy
Forest Management by Tenure
Since 2014 (see INDICATOR 7.1.a), the Parks and Wildlife Service (PWS) has managed
nearly all formal reserves and many informal reserves, whilst the future potential production
forest land has been administered by Crown Land Services, an organisational grouping within
PWS. Management of the formal reserves is subject to the National Parks and Reserves
Management Act 2002 and associated Regulations. The Tasmanian Reserve Management Code
of Practice 2003 is used in reserve management by the Parks and Wildlife Service.
Forestry Tasmania is the Tasmanian Government Business Enterprise responsible under the
Forest Management Act 2013 for sustainably managing approximately 812 000 ha of public
forest on the permanent timber production zone land, subject to the Forest Practices Act 1985
and associated Regulations. All elements of the way that Forestry Tasmania manages its lands
are described in its Forest Management Plan, available online.
Private professional forest management organisations have also developed sophisticated
environmental management systems that are consistent with the 1997 Tasmanian Regional
Forest Agreement and the 2005 Tasmanian Community Forest Agreement.
Table 7.1.b.2 indicates the extent to which sustainable forest management provisions are
integrated within institutional policy frameworks on public and private lands. Overall, there is
a strong commitment to integrating such policies irrespective of land tenure. However, there
are differences which reflect management objectives and practical issues. The variability of
integration of such policies as applied on private forest land reflects the spectrum of forest
management systems employed, and is generally more exhaustive. The reporting period 2011–
16 has seen the adoption of formal environmental management systems by many of the smaller
professional forest managers who manage private properties, in addition to the larger private
industrial companies operating on their own freehold land (see discussion on Certification
below).
Table 7.1.b.2 Extent of the sustainable forest management provisions in institutional policy frameworks
Extent to which the non-legislative policy framework provides for:
Permanent Timber Production Zone land
Nature conservation reserves
Other Crown land including FPPF
Private
Forest management planning and review
Accountable management body Y Y P P
Dispute resolution process Y Y Y P
Forest management planning Y Y Y P
Management review Y Y Y P
Planning for environmental values Y Y Y P
Planning review Y Y Y P
Policy review Y Y Y Y
Property rights Y Y Y Y
Periodic assessment of forest related resources
Y Y Y P
Public participation
Broad based public consultation for forest related policy
Y Y Y Y
Broad based public consultation to develop forest related management plans
P Y P P
Publication of specific forest-related information
Y Y Y P
Allows public access to information related to forests
P Y P P
Indigenous participation
Indigenous participation in management
P P P P
Indigenous participation in planning P P P P
Recognises cultural values Y Y Y P
Recognises native title rights P P P P
State of the forests Tasmania 2017 195
Extent to which the non-legislative policy framework provides for:
Permanent Timber Production Zone land
Nature conservation reserves
Other Crown land including FPPF
Private
Recognises the customary and traditional rights of Indigenous peoples
Y Y Y P
Allows traditional management on relevant public land (eg joint management/ co management)
N P P N
Allows access for traditional activities P P P N
Allows access to Indigenous cultural heritage
Y Y P P
Allows the performance of traditional practices
P P P P
Allows for the protection of Indigenous intellectual property
Y Y Y Y
Other aspects
Recognition of scientific values Y Y Y Y
Recognition of voluntary reserves on private land
- Y - Y
Regulation of forest clearing Y Y Y Y
Resource assessment Y Y P P
Secure land tenure Y Y P Y
SFM an explicit objective Y Y P P
Ratings:
Y = Yes. This aspect of sustainable forest management (SFM) is covered fairly comprehensively by policies in this tenure.
P = Partly. This aspect of SFM is only partially covered (or has limited application) by policies in this tenure.
N = No. This aspect of SFM is not covered by policies in this tenure.
Access includes an ability to enter and undertake activities such as foraging, hunting, or ceremonial.
Cross-sectoral involvement
Table 7.1.b.3 provides a summary of the area (in ha) for which management plans have been
developed and in which cross-sectional involvement occurs during the development of the
plans. Cross-sectoral involvement means the cooperation and sharing of information among
public agencies, private companies, and the wider community.
State of the forests Tasmania 2017 196
Table 7.1.b.3 Area of land under local and regional management plans, cross-sectoral involvement 2015–2016. (Note: the areas are land area, not forest area)
Forest Manager Area under management plan
(ha)
Does cross-sectoral
involvement occur in the
development of the plan?
What is the review period for the management
plan
Is the plan integrated with
other aspects of resource planning?
Forestry Tasmania 0.8 million yes 10 years yes
Parks and Wildlife 1.7 million yes 5–10 years yes
Professional Forest Management Companies
0.3 million yes various yes
Private forest owners Unknown NA NA NA
Private forest reserve programs (areas under conservation covenant)
98 700 yes dependent upon program
yes
During the reporting period 2011–16, new registration of land under conservation covenants
totalled 19 423 ha. This are includes both forest and non-forest vegetation. Forest areas within
the private covenant estate are required to be managed in accordance with the individual
Covenant terms and associated management plans, which typically place restrictions on the
clearing of native vegetation and require land management issues such as weeds to be
addressed.
Community Consultation
Ensuring the community is informed about, and engaged in, public forest management
decisions is fundamental to effective institutional forest management and conservation systems.
The Forest Practices Act 1985 ensures regional consultation and planning through the
mechanism of 3-year plans. Any entity who anticipates harvesting more than 100 000 tonnes
of timber in a given year must prepare a plan detailing the harvest locations, expected timber
volumes, cartage routes, and reafforestation measures and provide it to the Board of the Forest
Practices Authority and to local government authorities affected by the harvest or cartage.
Community involvement in private forest management (as defined under the Forest Practices
Act 1985) is mandatory under Section A3.2 of the Forest Practices Code. In addition,
provisions under both the Australian Forestry Standard and the Forest Stewardship Council
require community consultation.
The Progress Board of the Tasmania Together process, described in previous State of the
Forests Tasmania reports, was disbanded by the Tasmanian Parliament in 2012. This process
has not been active during the reporting period 2012–2016. Further information on
government agency initiatives which support community participation on forest management
and conservation planning is at APPENDIX 7.1.b.
Enforcement of laws, regulations and guidelines
Government agencies with legislative authority to undertake investigate and measure
compliance against legal instruments include the:
FPA which undertakes annual audits of forest practices plans and also investigates all
potential breaches under the Forest Practices Act 1985. It has the authority to apply
State of the forests Tasmania 2017 197
sanctions where breaches of the Forest Practices Code and the plan have been identified.
Investigations can be carried out by any Forest Practices Officer (FPO). There were on
average 195 FPOs accredited with the Authority during the reporting period 2012–2016
(see Table 7.1.b.5).
DPIPWE (Natural and Cultural Heritage Division) which employs six (2016) trained
enforcement and compliance officers to ensure compliance with its Acts and Regulations.
DPIPWE (PWS) had a total of 134 authorised officers (mostly Rangers) undertaking
compliance work in 2016 as a part of their daily duties, including three Compliance
Officers responsible for major investigations and coordination of all compliance activity
state-wide.
Table 7.1.b.4 provides an overview of the monitoring and compliance systems in place across
tenures. The number of monitoring and compliance activities carried out annually over the
reporting period 2011 to 2016 are not readily available.
Table 7.1.b.4 Monitoring and compliance systems in forested land, by tenure
ACTIVITY RATING OF MONITORING AND COMPLIANCE SYSTEMS
Permanent Timber
Production Zone land
Nature conservation
reserves
Private land Other Crown land inc. FPPF
land
Arson P P P P
Animals (bringing into areas where they are not allowed)
Theft of forest produce (firewood, fence posts etc)
P P P P
Vehicle (accessing unauthorised areas)
P P P P
Rating:
F = Fully effective
P = Partly effective, some improvements can be made and enforcement effort undertaken.
N = Not in place
Forest Practices Officers
Under the regulatory framework established through the Forest Practices Act 1985, the forest
industry has a responsibility to adequately supervise and monitor its forestry operations to
ensure compliance.
State of the forests Tasmania 2017 198
The FPA accredits Forest Practices Officers (FPOs) who have legislative authority under the
Forest Practices Act 1985 to undertake compliance and enforcement activities across all
tenures where forest activities are contrary to the Act or the Forest Practices Code 2015.
Consistent with the co-regulatory approach, FPOs include employees of private companies and
public agencies, private contractors and self employed individuals.
There were 234 Forest Practices Officers (FPOs) accredited in 2010–11 who were warranted to
supervise and monitor forestry operations to ensure that they comply with the Forest Practices
Act 1985. This number decreased at the beginning of the current reporting period due to the
downturn in the forest industry, but has remained steady at just under 200 statewide since
(Table 7.1.b.5).
Table 7.1.b.5 Number of Forest Practices Officers (FPOs) authorised to undertake compliance and enforcement activities
Financial year Number of FPOs
2006–07 220
2007–08 244
2008–09 228
2009–10 225
2010–11 234
2011–12 193
2012–13 194
2013–14 196
2014–15 195
2015–16 199
Certificates of Compliance for Forest Practices Plans
Changes to the Forest Practices Act 1985 implemented from 1 July 1999 introduced a
requirement for a compliance report to be lodged with the FPA within 30 days of the
completion of operations prescribed within a FPP. Compliance reporting began in 2001–02.
Reports provide evidence that an FPP:
fully complied with all provisions of the plan; or
did not fully comply with all the provisions of the plan:
o no further action required – this generally involves a change in the operation which
does not result in any adverse long term environmental harm, such as the stocking
standard in a plantation being below the target specified in the forest practices plan
but still at an adequate level to achieve site occupancy.
o the matter was resolved through corrective action – this generally means that the
FPO undertaking the final compliance check has detected non-compliance and has
issued a notice under the Forest Practices Act to require corrective action to ensure
compliance with the plan.
o further action required – this generally involves a non-compliance issue that
requires further investigation and action by the FPA.
Changes to the Forest Practices Act 1985 implemented from 1 July 2005 require reports on
compliance to be lodged within 30 days of the completion of each discrete operational phase
State of the forests Tasmania 2017 199
within the FPP. Discrete operational phases include activities such as road construction,
harvesting and reforestation.
The 2007 Sustainability Indicators Report documented an unsatisfactory level of lodgement of
compliance reports for independent private forest owners. During the reporting period 2006–
2011 there was a substantial increase in the rate of lodgement of reports by independent private
forest owners, from 42% in 2006–07 to 93% in 2011. This result was achieved through ongoing
enforcement by the FPA together with increased support by FPOs and forest managers. In the
current reporting period, CoC lodgement levels for independent private forest owners averaged
80% for the period 2012–2015, but dropped to 38% in 2016.
Generally, the level of compliance has been high, with on average 86% of operations not
requiring a corrective action or further investigation for the reporting period 2011–2016.
Table 7.1.b.6 Certificates of compliance (CoCs) lodged with the Forest Practices Authority (and percentage)
YEAR CoCs due
CoCs lodged
No activity Compliance (for certificates lodged)
Fully complied
Not fully complied
No further action
required
Corrective
Action required
Further investigation
required
2015–16 1609 1371 108 1240 100 2 6
91% 83% 7% <0.5% <0.5%
2014–15 1079 1056 78 834 134 1 9
98% 85% 14% <0.5% 1%
2013–14 1270 1096 71 928 85 2 9
86% 91% 8% 0.1% 1%
2012–13 747 696 29 591 66 0 10
93% 85% 9% 0 1.5%
2011–12 970 835 702 122 2 8
86% 84% 15% 0% 1%
2010–11 1047 1 012 845 139 11 17
96.7% 83.5% 13.7% 1.1% 1.7%
2009–10 821 794 673 95 5 21
96.7% 85% 12% 0.6% 2.6%
2008–09 931 925 801 101 3 20
99.4% 86% 11% 0.3% 2.1%
2007–08 911 735 686 41 1 7
81% 93% 6% 0.1% 1%
2006–07 3995 3 081 2 417 523 55 86
77% 78% 17% 2% 3%
Note: Table 7.1.b.6, data for 2006–07 reported on the number of CoCs for individual discrete operational phases (DOPs), eg roading, harvesting or reforestation, which may all be covered by the one forest practices plan. Data for 2007 to 2013 reported on lodgement of final CoCs only. Data for 2013 onwards again report on individual DOPs. The ‘no activity’ category was added in 2012–13 to reflect instances where the FPP expired and no operations had taken place.
State of the forests Tasmania 2017 200
Annual assessment of forest practices plans
The FPA undertakes an annual assessment program covering a representative sample of 10-15%
of the number of FPPs certified that year. The FPPs are selected by stratified random sample to
incorporate all aspects of forest planning and operational practices undertaken by companies
and agencies, and individual forest owners or managers.
The assessment program provides an independent and objective instrument, which identifies
where further improvements can be made to ensure forest planning and operations meet the
objectives of the Forest Practices Act 1985 and the Forest Practices Code 2015.
A comparison of assessments from 2011–12, 2012–13 and 2013–14 provides consistent
comparison of the performance rating achieved by tenure from over these three years and is
presented in Table 7.1.b.7 . A ‘Sound’ rating is considered by the Forest Practices Authority as
the standard required to meet the requirements of the Forest Practices Act 1985 and the Forest
Practices Code 2015. Table 7.1.b.7 indicates that over these three years, on average, 91.3% of
all forest operations across all tenures met or exceed the required minimum standards.
Table 7.1.b.7 Percentage of performance rating achieved by tenure Years 2011–12, 2012–13 and 2013–14
Standard Year Industrial private forest
Independent private forest
State forest
Annual Average
3 Year Average
Unacceptable 2011–12 0.4 2.0 0.0 0.8
2012–13 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.3 2.9
2013–14 0.0 0.7 0.7 0.5
Below Sound 2011–12 8.1 10.5 5.7 8.1
2012–13 6.1 13.1 3.1 7.4 6.7
2013–14 3.0 7.6 4.3 5.0
Sound 2011–12 12.4 28.7 9.5 16.9
2012–13 10.8 3.5 3.3 5.9 8.6
2013–14 4.6 2.2 2.6 3.1
Above Sound 2011–12 3.8 19.9 3.1 8.9
2012–13 1.4 1.0 1.9 1.4 3.5
2013–14 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.2
High 2011–12 75.3 38.9 81.7 65.3
2012–13 89.0 74.3 91.7 85.0 80.5
2013–14 87.1 94.8 92.1 91.3
Figures for 2013 onwards again report on CoCs for individual discrete operational phases. The
performance ratings achieved in 2014–15 and 2015–16 are shown below in Table 7.1.b.8.
A ‘Sound’ rating is considered by the Forest Practices Authority as the standard required to
meet the requirements of the Forest Practices Act 1985 and the Forest Practices Code 2015.
Table 7.1.b.8 indicates that over these two years, on average, 92.6% of all forest operations
across all tenures met or exceed the required minimum standards.
State of the forests Tasmania 2017 201
Table 7.1.b.8 Percentage of performance rating achieved by tenure (2014–15 to 2015–16)
Standard Year Industrial private forest
Independent private forest
State forest
Annual Average
2 Year Average
Unacceptable 2014–15 0.4 3.3 0.6 1.4 1.2
2015–16 0.3 1.4 1.2 1.0
Below Sound 2014–15 5.1 10.2 4.6 6.6 6.1
2015–16 6.1 7.0 4.1 5.7
Sound 2014–15 86.5 94.5 94.8 91.9 92.6
2015–16 93.5 91.6 94.7 93.3
Investigation and Enforcement
Under the Forest Practices Act 1985, the FPA must investigate all complaints relating to
alleged breaches or poor practice. Formal legal investigations by the FPA are undertaken into
serious breaches, sometimes in consultation with the Tasmanian Police.
The forest practices system is designed to achieve high environmental standards, with an
emphasis on planning, training and education. Where problems arise, the FPA expects that
they will be dealt with through early detection and corrective action. Corrective action may
mean remedial treatment in the forest. Importantly, it also means reviewing and improving
systems to ensure that similar failures do not arise in the future. From time to time, a failure
occurs that generally reflects inadequate systems or insufficient care. In these cases, penalties
are appropriate to reinforce the importance of all parties striving for full compliance with the
requirements of the Forest Practices Act 1985.
Legal enforcement may be taken in several ways:
FPOs may give verbal or written notification in order to inform persons that they must
comply with the Forest Practices Act 1985 or an FPP. Failure to comply with the second
notice may lead to prosecution.
The FPA may prosecute for failure to have operations covered by an FPP, for failing to
comply with an FPP or for failing to lodge a compliance report.
The FPA may impose fines as an alternative to prosecution.
Table 7.1.b.9 shows the number of formal investigations undertaken by the FPA since 1995–96.
The level of investigations and actions reflect annual trends and cannot be taken to indicate the
effectiveness of the system.
The majority of breaches can generally be attributed to human error or lack of knowledge about
the requirements of the forest practices system. Most breaches are dealt with by corrective
actions, in accordance with the philosophy of the Forest Practices Act 1985 to ‘make good’
and to effect improvement. In comparing the percentage of major breaches on an annual basis
there does appear to be an overall reduction leading to the imposition of penalties and/or legal
action which may reflect greater awareness of the legal obligations which apply to all land
managers undertaking forest operations. However overall levels of activity in the forest
industry may also be a factor.
State of the forests Tasmania 2017 202
Table 7.1.b.9 Number of investigations completed by the Forest Practices Authority 1995–96 to 2015–16
YEAR Total number formal investigations
Investigated and no breaches identified
Number of minor breaches
Number of major breaches
1995–96 82 23 19 40
1996–97 140 29 48 63
1997–98 80 16 34 30
1998–99 74 21 23 30
1999–00 77 33 40 4
2000–01 83 34 39 10
2001–02 58 21 30 7
2002–03 90 28 46 16
2003–04 128 39 57 32
2004–05 136 42 64 30
2005–06 93 36 38 19
2006–07 62 23 32 7
2007–08 86 28 42 16
2008–09 60 24 27 9
2009–10 98 43 36 17
2010–11 101 48 39 14
2011–12 92 25 52 15
2012–13 36 10 17 9
2013–14 55 17 30 8
2014–15 44 12 26 6
2015–16 32 11 12 9
Note: Minor breaches include: notices to rectify; warnings,, but no further action.
Major breaches include penalties, legal action and breaches where no action was pursued due to insufficient evidence and/or legislative time constraints.
Enforcement in Conservation Reserves
The Parks and Wildlife Service (PWS) manages a terrestrial reserve estate of 3.3 million ha in
453 reserves covering approximately 50%1 of Tasmania. Over half the area of the reserve
system lies within the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area, one of the largest
conservation reserves in Australia (1.584 million ha at the time of writing) covering
approximately 23% of the land area of Tasmania and one of only three temperate wilderness
areas remaining in the Southern Hemisphere.
The key objective of the PWS is to manage the state’s representative and world renowned
public reserve system to achieve the principal goal of conserving natural and cultural heritage
while providing for sustainable use and economic opportunities for the Tasmanian community.
1 The percentage figure quoted in the 2001–06 report incorrectly included marine waters
State of the forests Tasmania 2017 203
In 2008 the existing strategic plan was replaced by the PWS Strategic Plan 2008–10, providing
a framework for reserve system management.
Several key advisory groups continue to provide regular and informed community input to
reserve management – the National Parks and Wildlife Advisory Committee, the World
Heritage Area Consultative Committee and, for part of the reporting period, the Arthur Pieman
Advisory Committee. Consultation and liaison with a wide range of local communities and
interest groups continues across the state.
Enforcement of relevant Acts and Regulations on reserved land is co-ordinated by the PWS
State Compliance Unit (SCU), which was established in 2011with a staff of three compliance
officers. The Wildlife Operations Unit of DPIPWE continues to deal with a broad range of
natural and cultural heritage enforcement matters, both within and outside the reserve system.
Initial tasks for the SCU have revolved around the simplification and consolidation of PWS
compliance procedures, along with authorised officer training and mentoring, to increase the
level of compliance activity across the state. Most authorised officers are rangers or field
officers, operating from field centres throughout Tasmania. In this way, PWS aims to more
efficiently conduct compliance operations in the future.
State of the forests Tasmania 2017 204
Table 7.1.b.10 indicates the amount of enforcement work undertaken by PWS and DPIPWE
field staff.
Where possible, infringement notices are issued in preference to preparing court files. A large
proportion of court files related to the illegal taking of firewood. Some significant commercial-
scale operations were disrupted as a result. Charges were laid both under the National Parks
and Reserved Land Regulations 2009 and the National Parks and Reserves Management Act
2002. PWS has put in place a framework for a significant increase in the amount of compliance
activity surrounding timber theft. The lynch-pin of this framework is the creation of the SCU,
which has and will continue to formulate strategies for a coordinated multi-tiered response to
these offences. This activity takes the form of proactive and reactive strategies aimed both at
identifying and prosecuting offenders as well as preventing the occurrence through education
and other pressures
Illegal off-road vehicle access accounted for a high percentage of infringement notices, plus
several court prosecutions.
Enhanced remote area technical surveillance capability has meant a much higher offence
detection rate, with offenders frequently identified through their vehicle details or faces being
caught on camera.
Infringement notices for failing to display park entry passes have been largely replaced by a
system where offenders are given a notice of breach, giving them seven days to rectify the
situation before enforcement action is considered. Compliance as a result is approximately
90%.
State of the forests Tasmania 2017 205
Table 7.1.b.10 Cautions and Notices issued by PWS and DPIPWE field officers during period 2011–16
Hawes M (2008) Mount Field National Park Track Management Plan. Track Management
Consultancy Services. 90p.
Koch AJ, Chuter A, Munks SA (2012) IVG forest conservation report 10. A review of forestry
impacts on biodiversity and the effectiveness of 'off-reserve' management actions in areas
covered by the Tasmanian forest practices system. Forest Practices Authority, Hobart.
Parks and Wildlife Service: Dixon G, Hawes M (2011). Walking Track Management Strategy
for Tasmania’s National Parks and Reserves 2011–20. Dept Primary Industry, Parks,
Water & the Environment, Tasmania. 98p.
Parks and Wildlife Service (2013) Evaluating Management Effectiveness: The Monitoring and
Reporting System for Tasmania‘s National Parks and Reserves. Department of Primary
Industries, Parks, Water and Environment. Hobart, Tasmania. 157p.
State of the forests Tasmania 2017 215
INDICATOR 7.1.e CAPACITY TO CONDUCT AND APPLY RESEARCH AND
DEVELOPMENT AIMED AT IMPROVING FOREST
MANAGEMENT AND DELIVERY OF FOREST GOODS AND
SERVICES
A scientific understanding of the characteristics and functions of Australian forest ecosystems
is needed to underpin their management. Research and development provides the basis for
understanding of forest ecosystems for the continual improvement of conservation biology and
forest management operations. This leads to advances in silviculture, conservation
management and harvesting and reforestation practices. Reporting on these methods is a
means of assessing sustainable forest management.
The capacity to conduct and apply research and development can be measured by the number
of personnel engaged in this activity, the related expenditure, and the number of research
publications produced. Data in regard to these measures were therefore sought from a number
of agencies, research funders and research providers, including the Tasmanian Department of
Primary Industries, Parks Water and Environment (DPIPWE), Forestry Tasmania, the Forest
Practices Authority, the University of Tasmania, the ARC Centre for Forest Value and three
private companies.
Capacity
The capacity in Tasmania to conduct forest-related research in 2015–16 can be quantified by
the expenditure on research and the number of research staff employed.
Table 7.1.e.1 Magnitude of Tasmanian forest and forestry research and development effort (financial year 2015–16)
Forestry Tasmania
Private companies
Other agencies Total
FPA DPIPWE
Personnel engaged on forest-related R&D (number of Full Time Equivalent positions)
4.8 4.5 1.98 2.5 13.78
Expenditure on forest-related R&D ($million)
0.63 0.57 0.27 NA
Research publications in last 5 years (number)
1010
Note: The number of full time equivalent (FTE) researchers reported in the ‘Private companies’ grouping in Table 7.1.e.1 includes data from Norske Skog, Timberlands Pacific and Forico only.
In previous reporting periods, much of the Tasmanian forest-related research effort occurred
through the CRC for Forestry. This CRC was funded under round nine of the CRC Program
for a seven-year period, covering July 2005 to June 2012, and its resources included
$26.6 million of CRC Program cash, $10.5 million in cash from its member participants, and
in-kind resources from its member participants of $46.7 million. Tasmanian member
participants in the CRC for Forestry included the CSIRO, the Department of Economic
Development, Tourism and the Arts, the Forests and Forest Industry Council of Tasmania, the
Forest Practices Authority, Forestry Tasmania, Gunns Ltd, Norske Skog, and the University of
Tasmania. The research of the CRC for Forestry was organised into four programs: Managing
and Monitoring for Growth and Health, High-value Wood Resources, Harvesting and
Operations, and Trees in the Landscape.
State of the forests Tasmania 2017 216
Forestry Tasmania’s Forest Management Branch undertakes, and collaborates in, research into
native forest silviculture, plantation silviculture, biology and conservation (including forest
health surveillance), and together with the Parks and Wildlife Service (part of DPIPWE),
manages the Warra Long-term Ecological Research Site in southern Tasmania. At least one-
third of Forestry Tasmania's research expenditure is devoted to development and extension
work involved in the strategic or operational uptake of research.
The research topics to which Forestry Tasmania’s research capacity is directed is summarised
in Table 7.1.e.2. The majority of current researchers are in flora and fauna ecology,
silviculture, tree breeding, hydrology, diseases and pests. It is notable that the research effort in
silviculture has been maintained, even though this is regarded less and less as an academic
discipline. Not captured in these figures is the increasing research effort undertaken at the
landscape level, signifying the emerging disciplines of conservation biology, landscape
ecology, landscape genetics and dynamic forest management, for example, as well as the
increasing recognition of the need to manage forests at this scale.
Table 7.1.e.2 Full-time personnel engaged in forest-related research and development in 2015–16 (FTE): Forestry Tasmania and DPIPWE only
Plantations Native forest Total
Silvicultural research 0.1 0.05 0.15
Tree breeding (not horticultural) 0.4 0 0.4
Forest hydrology 0 0.15 0.15
Timber use 0.15 0 0.15
Fire behaviour 0 0 0
Forest pathology 0.6 0.5 1.1
Agroforestry 0 0 0
Fauna ecology (including genetics) 0 0.5 0.5
Fire ecology 0 0.65 0.65
Forest entomology 0.5 1.0 1.5
Flora ecology (including genetics) 0 1.3 1.3
Non-timber forest products 0 0.15 0.15
Climate change 0 0.45 0.45
Statistical analysis 0.2 0.4 0.6
Other 0.1 0.1 0.2
TOTAL 2.05 5.25 7.3
The Warra Long-Term Ecological Research Site is the Tasmanian focal area for research into
wet eucalypt forests and their management. Research at Warra is supported by nine site partner
agencies. Warra benefited from the creation of the TERN – the Terrestrial Ecosystem Research
Network (http://www.tern.org.au ) - (a Commonwealth facility funded through the National
Collaborative Research Infrastructure Scheme) in 2009.
State of the forests Tasmania 2017 217
New research infrastructure investment at Warra provided through TERN includes: the Warra
Flux Tower (part of the OzFlux Network); the Warra Supersite (Australian Supersites
Network); a 5 x 5km AusCover plot and three 1-ha AusPlots Forests plots. Fully documented
datasets from ongoing measurements made at Warra are now lodged on TERN data portals.
Warra continues to host a lot of research activity. Over 220 research projects have now been
conducted at Warra (see http://www.warra.com), many on-going. This research has generated
320 reports and publications – over 100 of these in international peer-reviewed journals. The
number of long-term 'flagship' projects at Warra has expanded and includes (together with the
TERN-funded infrastructure): the Silvicultural Systems Trial, the Log Decay Study, the Mt
Weld Altitudinal Monitoring Plots; Warra Weirs Hydrological monitoring; The Wildfire
Chronosequence Plots; and the Experimental Forest Landscape. Science findings from these
studies have been used to inform operational management. This includes: Variable Retention
silviculture for harvesting mature wet eucalypt forests; Landscape Context Planning System to
help ensure sufficient forest in the surrounding landscape is retained long-term to sustain
dependent forest species; and guidelines for managing the coarse woody debris habitat for
dependent species.
FPA research in the earth sciences and cultural heritage fields in the last five years has
concentrated on landscape-scale erosion history and erosion risks, determining the influence of
Aboriginal-lit fires on vegetation and landscape character, stream monitoring, determining the
principles of carbon sequestration in Tasmanian native forests, and developing procedures for
systematic recording and protection of cultural heritage.
The Forest Practices Authority has updated and improved the Mature Habitat Availability Map
which can be used to strategically manage mature forest features such as tree hollows. FPA
staff are collaborating with FT and ANU staff to explore the use of LiDAR for creating a
similar map with greater spatial resolution. FT and FPA used existing GIS layers to try and
model the agreed definitions of habitat for a number of threatened fauna species. A workshop
was held to get expert feedback on the expected accuracy and utility of the different models.
FPA research is done in collaboration with researchers, students and staff in government
departments, institutions, and companies such as University of Tasmania, Murdoch University,
University of Queensland, Australian National University, University of the Fraser Valley in
BC Canada, DPIPWE, Forestry Tasmania, Private Forests Tasmania, Timberlands Pacific,
Gunns, Forico, Timberlands Pacific and Norske-Skog. FPA researchers have also provided
assistance to researchers working in similar fields overseas, specifically in Papua New Guinea
and the USA.
On 4 June 2016 the Australian Government announced the establishment of the National
Institute for Forest Products Innovation to be jointly based in Launceston, Tasmania and Mt
Gambier, South Australia.
The ARC Centre for Forest Value (http://www.utas.edu.au/arc-forest-value/home) situated on
the University of Tasmania’s Hobart campus was established in early 2016. The research effort
of the centre is to be attributed one-third each to forest ecology/forest restoration, timber in
service, and supply chain/information management. At capacity it will have two directors, two
managers, one half-time research assistant, four chief investigators, three post-doctoral fellows
and 10 PhD students. There are also other affiliated PhD students. The Centre has as its focus
the training of forest scientists to work within the forest industry with a market-driven approach.
The Centre has eight industry partners including Greening Australia, Forestry Tasmania, SFM
Environmental Solutions, Forico, Neville-Smith Forest Products, Next 50 Architects, Forest
and Wood Products Australia, and the Island Workshop Prefab Lab.
3. Fire .............................................................................................................................................................. 425
4. Heritage conservation (natural and cultural) .............................................................................................. 431
5. Non-wood values of forests......................................................................................................................... 433
6. Pests and diseases ....................................................................................................................................... 436
7. Silviculture, tree growth and productivity ................................................................................................... 442
8. Social and economic analysis, forest policy and education ......................................................................... 455
9. Soil and water conservation, ecosystem services ........................................................................................ 461
10. Wood products, wood properties and utilization ....................................................................................... 465
11. Harvesting and Transport ........................................................................................................................... 469
(a) Forest extent is as at the first quarter of 2015 and tenure is as at 30 June 2016 (b) Nature Conservation Act and Crown Lands Act Reserves (c) Includes Multiple-Use Forest
Thamnic rainforest on less fertile sites 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0
(a) Native forest growth stage as at 30th June 2016 on publicly-managed land, and 31st December 2015 on private land.
(b) Non-eucalypt communities cannot readily be mapped by growth stage. (c) Change in growth stage may also be partially due to continuous forest remapping, which is continually
updated.
State of the forests Tasmania 2017 236
Table 1.1.c.1 Area of native forest type protected by IUCN category(a)
Table 1.1.c.1 Area of native forest type protected by IUCN category (a)
RFA Forest Vegetation Community IUCN Category TOTAL
(a) Forest extent is as at the first quarter of 2015 and IUCN categories are as at 30 June 2016 (b) The areas listed having a ‘Not Classified’ IUCN category are other reserves within the CAR reserve system
State of the forests Tasmania 2017 240
Table 1.1.c.2 Area of native forest type protected by reserve class (a)
Table 1.1.c.2 Area of native forest type protected by reserve class (a)
(a) Forest extent is as at the first quarter of 2015 and reserve classes are as at 30 June 2016 (b) Subject to the Mineral Resources Development Act 1995.
State of the forests Tasmania 2017 244
Table 1.1.c.3 Change in reservation status of forest types (a)
Table 1.1.c.3 Change in reservation status of forest types (a)
RFA Forest Vegetation Community Forest in 1996 Forest in 2016 Change in proportion reserved
Pencil Pine with deciduous beech 200 0 0 0 200 0.0%
Thamnic rainforest on less fertile sites 278,000 20,000 31,000 5,000 334,000 -0.5%
Grand Total 863,000 103,000 133,000 107,000 1,206,000 -3.2%
(a) Old-growth forest extent as at 30th June 2016 on publicly-managed land, and 31st December 2015 on private land.
State of the forests Tasmania 2017 269
(b) Tenure as at 30th June, 2016. (c) Nature Conservation Act and Crown Lands Act. (d) Forest Management Act, 2013. (e) Publicly-managed land includes land managed by Public Authorities.
State of the forests Tasmania 2017 270
Table 1.1.e.2 Old-growth (a) by forest type and reserve type (b) (hectares)
Table 1.1.e.2 Old-growth (a) by forest type and reserve type (b) (hectares)
Wurmbea latifolia subsp. vanessae broadleaf early nancy e
Xanthorrhoea arenaria sand grasstree v VU
Xanthorrhoea bracteata shiny grasstree v EN
Xerochrysum bicolor eastcoast everlasting r
Xerochrysum palustre swamp everlasting v VU
Zieria littoralis downy zieria r
Zieria veronicea subsp. veronicea pink zieria e
Zygophyllum billardierei coast twinleaf r
*TSP Act codes:
Extinct (x): Those species presumed extinct. Endangered (e): Those species in danger of extinction because long term survival is unlikely while the factors causing them to be endangered continue operating. Vulnerable (v): Those species likely to become endangered while the factors causing them to become vulnerable continue operating. Rare (r): Those species with a small population in Tasmania that are at risk.
Ambuchanania leucobryoides daisy pan moss Bryophyte r
Bunodophoron notatum Lichen e
Calycidium cuneatum Lichen r
Calycidium polycarpum Lichen r
Cetraria islandica subsp. antarctica Lichen r
Erioderma sorediatum Lichen e
Hypotrachyna immaculata Lichen r
Hypotrachyna laevigata Lichen v
Melanelia piliferella Lichen v
Menegazzia minuta Lichen e
Parmelina pallida Lichen e
Parmelina whinrayi Lichen r
Parmeliopsis ambigua Lichen r
Parmeliopsis hyperopta Lichen r
Parmotrema crinitum Lichen r
Punctelia subflava Lichen x
Roccellinastrum neglectum Lichen e
Teloschistes flavicans golden-hair lichen Lichen r
Xanthoparmelia amphixantha Lichen e
Xanthoparmelia graniticola Lichen r
Xanthoparmelia jarmaniae Lichen v
Xanthoparmelia mannumensis Lichen v
Xanthoparmelia microphyllizans Lichen r
Xanthoparmelia molliuscula Lichen e
Xanthoparmelia oleosa Lichen r
Xanthoparmelia subloxodella Lichen e
Xanthoparmelia vicaria Lichen r
Xanthoparmelia vicariella Lichen r
Xanthoparmelia willisii Lichen e
Pseudocephalozia paludicola liverwort Liverwort VU
State of the forests Tasmania 2017 357
*TSP Act codes:
Extinct (x): Those species presumed extinct. Endangered (e): Those species in danger of extinction because long term survival is unlikely while the factors causing them to be endangered continue operating. Vulnerable (v): Those species likely to become endangered while the factors causing them to become vulnerable continue operating. Rare (r): Those species with a small population in Tasmania that are at risk.
Tyto novaehollandiae castanops Tasmanian masked owl
Uramphisopus pearsoni Isopod (Great Lake)
State of the forests Tasmania 2017 363
APPENDIX 1.3.a: RISK OF GENETIC LOSS
Table 1.3.a.1Assessment of the potential risk to threatened and priority Tasmanian forest-associated flora species from loss of genetic diversity or isolation
Species are those which are listed on Schedules of the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act,
or have been listed or proposed for listing as RFA priority species. Note that the list excludes orchid
species (as they are generally rapid speciators) as well as extinct species. In the absence of known
levels of morphological or genetic variation across the range of the species or evidence of range
declines, the assessment is largely based on extent of occurrence (the lower the extent the higher the
risk) and presence of geographic outliers of limited extent.
Table 1.3.a.1Assessment of the potential risk to threatened and priority Tasmanian forest-associated flora species from loss of genetic diversity or isolation
Species Common name Group Forest dwelling
TSP Act
EPBC Act
1.3.a risk category
Acacia axillaris midlands wattle Dicotyledon yes v VU high
Acacia pataczekii wallys wattle Dicotyledon yes r high
Acacia siculiformis dagger wattle Dicotyledon yes r moderate
Acacia ulicifolia juniper wattle Dicotyledon yes r moderate
Acacia uncifolia coast wirilda Dicotyledon yes r moderate
Acrotriche cordata coast groundberry Dicotyledon v moderate
Agrostis australiensis southern bent Monocotyledon yes r high
Agrostis diemenica flatleaf southern bent Monocotyledon yes r high
Allocasuarina crassa cape pillar sheoak Dicotyledon yes r moderate
Allocasuarina duncanii conical sheoak Dicotyledon yes r moderate
Alternanthera denticulata lesser joyweed Dicotyledon yes e moderate
Amphibromus macrorhinus longnosed swampgrass Monocotyledon e moderate
Amphibromus neesii southern swampgrass Monocotyledon yes r moderate
Anogramma leptophylla annual fern Pteridophyte yes v high
Aphelia gracilis slender fanwort Monocotyledon yes r moderate
Aphelia pumilio dwarf fanwort Monocotyledon yes r moderate
Argyrotegium fordianum soft cottonleaf Dicotyledon r high
Argyrotegium nitidulum shining cottonleaf Dicotyledon v VU high
Argyrotegium poliochlorum greygreen cottonleaf Dicotyledon r high
Asperula minima mossy woodruff Dicotyledon yes r high
Asperula scoparia subsp. scoparia
prickly woodruff Dicotyledon yes r low
Asperula subsimplex water woodruff Dicotyledon yes r moderate
Asplenium hookerianum maidenhair spleenwort Pteridophyte yes e VU high
Asplenium trichomanes subsp. trichomanes
dolerite spleenwort Pteridophyte yes v high
Atriplex suberecta sprawling saltbush Dicotyledon v high
Australina pusilla subsp. muelleri
shade nettle Dicotyledon yes r high
Australopyrum velutinum velvet wheatgrass Monocotyledon r high
Austrocynoglossum latifolium forest houndstongue Dicotyledon yes r high
Austrostipa bigeniculata doublejointed speargrass Monocotyledon yes r high
Austrostipa blackii crested speargrass Monocotyledon yes r high
Austrostipa scabra rough speargrass Monocotyledon r moderate
State of the forests Tasmania 2017 364
Table 1.3.a.1Assessment of the potential risk to threatened and priority Tasmanian forest-associated flora species from loss of genetic diversity or isolation
Species Common name Group Forest dwelling
TSP Act
EPBC Act
1.3.a risk category
Banksia serrata saw banksia Dicotyledon yes r high
Barbarea australis riverbed wintercress Dicotyledon yes e EN moderate
Baumea articulata jointed twigsedge Monocotyledon r high
Baumea gunnii slender twigsedge Monocotyledon yes r moderate
Bedfordia arborescens tree blanketleaf Dicotyledon yes v high
Bertya tasmanica subsp. tasmanica
tasmanian bertya Dicotyledon yes e EN high
Blechnum cartilagineum gristle fern Pteridophyte yes v high
Blechnum neohollandicum prickly raspfern Pteridophyte yes e high
Blechnum spinulosum small raspfern Pteridophyte yes e high
Bolboschoenus caldwellii sea clubsedge Monocotyledon r high
Bolboschoenus medianus marsh clubsedge Monocotyledon r high
Boronia gunnii river boronia Dicotyledon yes v VU high
Boronia hemichiton mt arthur boronia Dicotyledon yes e VU high
Boronia hippopala velvet boronia Dicotyledon yes v VU high
Bossiaea tasmanica spiny bossiaea Dicotyledon yes r high
Brachyloma depressum spreading heath Dicotyledon yes r high
Brachyscome perpusilla tiny daisy Dicotyledon yes r high
Brachyscome radicata spreading daisy Dicotyledon yes r high
Brachyscome rigidula cutleaf daisy Dicotyledon yes v moderate
Brunonia australis blue pincushion Dicotyledon yes r low
Caesia calliantha blue grasslily Monocotyledon yes r moderate
Calandrinia granulifera pygmy purslane Dicotyledon yes r high
Callitriche sonderi matted waterstarwort Dicotyledon r high
Callitriche umbonata winged waterstarwort Dicotyledon r high
Callitris oblonga subsp. oblonga south esk pine Gymnosperm yes v EN high
Calocephalus citreus lemon beautyheads Dicotyledon r moderate
Calocephalus lacteus milky beautyheads Dicotyledon r moderate
Calystegia marginata forest bindweed Dicotyledon yes e high
Calystegia sepium swamp bindweed Dicotyledon yes r high
Calystegia soldanella sea bindweed Dicotyledon r high
Carex capillacea yellowleaf sedge Monocotyledon r high
Carex cephalotes snow sedge Monocotyledon r high
Carex gunniana mountain sedge Monocotyledon yes r low
Carex hypandra dark fen sedge Monocotyledon r high
Carex longebrachiata drooping sedge Monocotyledon yes r low
Cassinia rugata wrinkled dollybush Dicotyledon yes e VU high
Caustis pentandra thick twistsedge Monocotyledon yes r moderate
Centipeda cunninghamii erect sneezeweed Dicotyledon yes r high
Centrolepis pedderensis pedder bristlewort Monocotyledon yes e EN high
Centrolepis strigosa subsp. pulvinata
bassian bristlewort Monocotyledon yes r high
State of the forests Tasmania 2017 365
Table 1.3.a.1Assessment of the potential risk to threatened and priority Tasmanian forest-associated flora species from loss of genetic diversity or isolation
Species Common name Group Forest dwelling
TSP Act
EPBC Act
1.3.a risk category
Centropappus brunonis tasmanian daisytree Dicotyledon yes r high
Cheilanthes distans bristly rockfern Pteridophyte yes e high
Chorizandra enodis black bristlesedge Monocotyledon yes e high
Chrysocephalum baxteri fringed everlasting Dicotyledon yes r high
Colobanthus curtisiae grassland cupflower Dicotyledon yes r VU low
Colobanthus pulvinatus cushion cupflower Dicotyledon r high
Comesperma defoliatum leafless milkwort Dicotyledon yes r high
Conospermum hookeri tasmanian smokebush Dicotyledon yes v VU high
Cotula vulgaris var. australasica slender buttons Dicotyledon r high
Craspedia preminghana preminghana billybuttons Dicotyledon e EN high
Crassula moschata musky stonecrop Dicotyledon r high
Cryptandra amara pretty pearlflower Dicotyledon yes e moderate
Cullen microcephalum dusky scurfpea Dicotyledon r moderate
Cuscuta tasmanica golden dodder Dicotyledon r high
Cyathea cunninghamii slender treefern Pteridophyte yes e high
Cyathea x marcescens skirted treefern Pteridophyte yes e high
Cyathodes platystoma tall cheeseberry Dicotyledon yes r moderate
Cyphanthera tasmanica tasmanian rayflower Dicotyledon yes r low
Damasonium minus starfruit Monocotyledon r high
Deschampsia gracillima slender hairgrass Monocotyledon r high
Desmodium gunnii southern ticktrefoil Dicotyledon yes v moderate
Desmodium varians slender ticktrefoil Dicotyledon yes e high
Deyeuxia apsleyensis apsley bentgrass Monocotyledon yes r high
Deyeuxia brachyathera short bentgrass Monocotyledon yes r high
Deyeuxia decipiens trickery bentgrass Monocotyledon yes r high
Deyeuxia minor small bentgrass Monocotyledon yes r high
Dianella amoena grassland flaxlily Monocotyledon r EN low
Discaria pubescens spiky anchorplant Dicotyledon yes e high
Drosera glanduligera scarlet sundew Dicotyledon r high
Dryopoa dives giant mountaingrass Monocotyledon yes r high
Elaeocarpus reticulatus blueberry ash Dicotyledon yes r low
Epacris apsleyensis apsley heath Dicotyledon yes e EN high
Epacris barbata bearded heath Dicotyledon yes e EN moderate
Epacris curtisiae north-west heath Dicotyledon yes r low
Epacris exserta south esk heath Dicotyledon yes e EN high
Epacris glabella smooth heath Dicotyledon yes e EN high
Epacris grandis tall heath Dicotyledon yes e EN high
Epacris graniticola granite heath Dicotyledon yes v CR high
Epacris limbata bordered heath Dicotyledon yes e CR high
Epacris moscaliana seepage heath Dicotyledon yes r EN moderate
Epacris stuartii southport heath Dicotyledon e CR high
State of the forests Tasmania 2017 366
Table 1.3.a.1Assessment of the potential risk to threatened and priority Tasmanian forest-associated flora species from loss of genetic diversity or isolation
Species Common name Group Forest dwelling
TSP Act
EPBC Act
1.3.a risk category
Epacris virgata (Beaconsfield) Dicotyledon yes v EN high
Epacris virgata (Kettering) Dicotyledon yes v low
Epilobium pallidiflorum showy willowherb Dicotyledon yes r moderate
Epilobium willisii carpet willowherb Dicotyledon r moderate
Eryngium ovinum blue devil Dicotyledon yes v high
Eucalyptus barberi barbers gum Dicotyledon yes r moderate
Eucalyptus globulus subsp. pseudoglobulus
gippsland blue gum Dicotyledon yes r high
Eucalyptus gunnii subsp. divaricata
miena cider gum Dicotyledon yes e EN high
Eucalyptus morrisbyi morrisbys gum Dicotyledon yes e EN high
Eucalyptus perriniana spinning gum Dicotyledon yes r high
Eucalyptus radiata subsp. radiata
forth river peppermint Dicotyledon yes r high
Eucalyptus risdonii risdon peppermint Dicotyledon yes r high
Euphrasia amphisysepala shiny cliff-eyebright Dicotyledon r VU high
Euphrasia amplidens Dicotyledon yes e high
Euphrasia collina subsp. deflexifolia
eastern eyebright Dicotyledon yes r high
Euphrasia collina subsp. North-west Tasmania
north-west eyebright Dicotyledon e high
Euphrasia collina subsp. tetragona
northcoast eyebright Dicotyledon e high
Euphrasia fragosa shy eyebright Dicotyledon yes e CR high
Euphrasia gibbsiae subsp. psilantherea
swamp eyebright Dicotyledon yes e CR high
Euphrasia gibbsiae subsp. pulvinestris
cushionplant eyebright Dicotyledon r high
Euphrasia gibbsiae subsp. wellingtonensis
mt wellington eyebright Dicotyledon r high
Euphrasia phragmostoma hairy cliff-eyebright Dicotyledon v VU high
Euphrasia scabra yellow eyebright Dicotyledon yes e high
Euphrasia semipicta peninsula eyebright Dicotyledon yes e EN high
Euphrasia sp. Bivouac Bay masked cliff-eyebright Dicotyledon e EN high
Eutaxia microphylla spiny bushpea Dicotyledon r high
Frankenia pauciflora var. gunnii southern seaheath Dicotyledon r high
Geococcus pusillus earth cress Dicotyledon r high
Geum talbotianum tasmanian snowrose Dicotyledon r moderate
Glossostigma elatinoides small mudmat Dicotyledon r high
Glycine latrobeana clover glycine Dicotyledon yes v VU moderate
Glycine microphylla small-leaf glycine Dicotyledon yes v moderate
Gompholobium ecostatum dwarf wedgepea Dicotyledon yes e high
Goodenia geniculata bent native-primrose Dicotyledon e high
Gratiola pubescens hairy brooklime Dicotyledon yes v moderate
Gynatrix pulchella fragrant hempbush Dicotyledon yes r moderate
State of the forests Tasmania 2017 367
Table 1.3.a.1Assessment of the potential risk to threatened and priority Tasmanian forest-associated flora species from loss of genetic diversity or isolation
Species Common name Group Forest dwelling
TSP Act
EPBC Act
1.3.a risk category
Gyrostemon thesioides broom wheelfruit Dicotyledon yes r moderate
Hakea ulicina furze needlebush Dicotyledon yes v low
Haloragis aspera rough raspwort Dicotyledon yes v high
Haloragis heterophylla variable raspwort Dicotyledon yes r low
Haloragis myriocarpa prickly raspwort Dicotyledon yes r high
Hardenbergia violacea purple coralpea Dicotyledon yes e high
Hedycarya angustifolia australian mulberry Dicotyledon yes r low
Hibbertia basaltica basalt guineaflower Dicotyledon e EN high
Hibbertia calycina lesser guineaflower Dicotyledon yes v moderate
Hibbertia rufa brown guineaflower Dicotyledon r moderate
Hibbertia virgata twiggy guineaflower Dicotyledon yes r high
Hierochloe rariflora cane holygrass Monocotyledon yes r low
Hovea corrickiae glossy purplepea Dicotyledon yes r moderate
Hovea montana mountain purplepea Dicotyledon yes r low
Hovea tasmanica rockfield purplepea Dicotyledon yes r low
Hyalosperma demissum moss sunray Dicotyledon yes e moderate
Hydrocotyle comocarpa fringefruit pennywort Dicotyledon yes r moderate
Hydrocotyle laxiflora stinking pennywort Dicotyledon yes e high
Hypolepis distans scrambling groundfern Pteridophyte yes e EN moderate
Hypolepis muelleri harsh groundfern Pteridophyte yes r moderate
Isoetes drummondii subsp. drummondii
plain quillwort Pteridophyte yes r high
Isoetes elatior tall quillwort Pteridophyte r high
Isoetes humilior veiled quillwort Pteridophyte r moderate
Isoetes sp. Maxwell River limestone quillwort Pteridophyte r moderate
Isoetopsis graminifolia grass cushion Dicotyledon v high
Isolepis habra wispy clubsedge Monocotyledon yes r high
Isolepis stellata star clubsedge Monocotyledon yes r high
Isopogon ceratophyllus horny conebush Dicotyledon yes v low
Juncus amabilis gentle rush Monocotyledon yes r moderate
Juncus fockei slender jointleaf rush Monocotyledon r high
Juncus prismatocarpus branching rush Monocotyledon yes r high
Juncus vaginatus clustered rush Monocotyledon yes r high
Lachnagrostis billardierei subsp. tenuiseta
small-awn blowngrass Monocotyledon r high
Lachnagrostis punicea subsp. filifolia
narrowleaf blowngrass Monocotyledon r high
Lachnagrostis punicea subsp. punicea
bristle blowngrass Monocotyledon yes r high
Lachnagrostis robusta tall blowngrass Monocotyledon r high
Lasiopetalum baueri slender velvetbush Dicotyledon r moderate
Lasiopetalum discolor coast velvetbush Dicotyledon r high
Lasiopetalum micranthum tasmanian velvetbush Dicotyledon yes r low
State of the forests Tasmania 2017 368
Table 1.3.a.1Assessment of the potential risk to threatened and priority Tasmanian forest-associated flora species from loss of genetic diversity or isolation
Species Common name Group Forest dwelling
TSP Act
EPBC Act
1.3.a risk category
Lepidium flexicaule springy peppercress Dicotyledon r high
Lepidium hyssopifolium soft peppercress Dicotyledon yes e EN high
Lepidosperma forsythii stout rapiersedge Monocotyledon r moderate
Lepidosperma tortuosum twisting rapiersedge Monocotyledon yes r high
Lepidosperma viscidum sticky swordsedge Monocotyledon yes r high
Lepilaena marina sea watermat Monocotyledon r high
Lepilaena patentifolia spreading watermat Monocotyledon r high
Lepilaena preissii slender watermat Monocotyledon r high
Leptorhynchos elongatus lanky buttons Dicotyledon e high
Leucochrysum albicans var. tricolor
grassland paperdaisy Dicotyledon e EN high
Leucopogon affinis lance beardheath Dicotyledon yes r high
Leucopogon esquamatus swamp beardheath Dicotyledon r low
Leucopogon virgatus var. brevifolius
shortleaf beardheath Dicotyledon yes r high
Limonium australe var. australe yellow sea-lavender Dicotyledon r moderate
Limonium australe var. baudinii tasmanian sea-lavender Dicotyledon v VU high
Liparophyllum exaltatum erect marshflower Dicotyledon r high
Lobelia dentata Dicotyledon yes r high
Lobelia pratioides poison lobelia Dicotyledon yes v moderate
Lobelia rhombifolia tufted lobelia Dicotyledon yes r high
Lomatia tasmanica kings lomatia Dicotyledon yes e CR high
Lotus australis australian trefoil Dicotyledon r moderate
Luzula atrata slender woodrush Monocotyledon r high
Lycopus australis australian gypsywort Dicotyledon yes e high
Lythrum salicaria purple loosestrife Dicotyledon yes v moderate
Melaleuca pustulata warty paperbark Dicotyledon yes r moderate
Mentha australis river mint Dicotyledon yes e high
Micrantheum serpentinum western tridentbush Dicotyledon yes r moderate
Milligania johnstonii shortleaf milligania Monocotyledon r high
Milligania longifolia longleaf milligania Monocotyledon r high
Millotia muelleri clustered bowflower Dicotyledon yes e high
Mirbelia oxylobioides sandstone bushpea Dicotyledon yes v high
Monotoca submutica var. autumnalis
roundleaf broomheath Dicotyledon yes r moderate
Muehlenbeckia axillaris matted lignum Dicotyledon yes r moderate
Myoporum parvifolium creeping boobialla Dicotyledon v high
Myosurus australis southern mousetail Dicotyledon yes e high
Myriophyllum integrifolium tiny watermilfoil Dicotyledon yes v high
Myriophyllum muelleri hooded watermilfoil Dicotyledon r high
Odixia achlaena golden everlastingbush Dicotyledon yes r moderate
Olearia hookeri crimsontip daisybush Dicotyledon yes r high
State of the forests Tasmania 2017 369
Table 1.3.a.1Assessment of the potential risk to threatened and priority Tasmanian forest-associated flora species from loss of genetic diversity or isolation
Species Common name Group Forest dwelling
TSP Act
EPBC Act
1.3.a risk category
Orites milliganii toothed orites Dicotyledon r low
Ozothamnus lycopodioides clubmoss everlastingbush Dicotyledon yes r moderate
Ozothamnus reflexifolius reflexed everlastingbush Dicotyledon yes v VU high
Pandorea pandorana wonga vine Dicotyledon yes r high
Parietaria debilis shade pellitory Dicotyledon yes r moderate
Pellaea calidirupium hotrock fern Pteridophyte yes r moderate
Pentachondra ericifolia fine frillyheath Dicotyledon yes r moderate
Persicaria decipiens slenderwaterpepper Dicotyledon yes v moderate
Persicaria subsessilis bristly waterpepper Dicotyledon yes e high
Persoonia moscalii creeping geebung Dicotyledon r moderate
Persoonia muelleri subsp. angustifolia
narrowleaf geebung Dicotyledon yes r moderate
Phebalium daviesii davies waxflower Dicotyledon yes e CR high
Pherosphaera hookeriana Mount Mawson pine Gymnosperm yes v moderate
Philotheca freyciana freycinet waxflower Dicotyledon e EN high
Phyllangium distylis tiny mitrewort Dicotyledon r moderate
Phyllangium divergens wiry mitrewort Dicotyledon yes v moderate
Phylloglossum drummondii pygmy clubmoss Pteridophyte r moderate
Pilularia novae-hollandiae austral pillwort Pteridophyte r moderate
Pimelea axiflora subsp. axiflora bootlace bush Dicotyledon yes e moderate
Pimelea curviflora var. gracilis slender curved riceflower Dicotyledon yes r moderate
Pimelea curviflora var. sericea silky curved riceflower Dicotyledon yes r high
Pimelea flava subsp. flava yellow riceflower Dicotyledon yes r high
Pimelea milliganii silver riceflower Dicotyledon r moderate
Pimelea sp. Tunbridge grassland riceflower Dicotyledon yes e high
Planocarpa nitida black cheeseberry Dicotyledon yes r moderate
Planocarpa sulcata grooved cheeseberry Dicotyledon r low
Plantago debilis shade plantain Dicotyledon yes r low
Plantago glacialis small star plantain Dicotyledon r high
Pneumatopteris pennigera lime fern Pteridophyte yes e high
Poa halmaturina dune tussockgrass Monocotyledon r high
Poa mollis soft tussockgrass Monocotyledon yes r moderate
Polyscias sp. Douglas-Denison ferny panax Dicotyledon yes e high
Pomaderris elachophylla small-leaf dogwood Dicotyledon yes v moderate
Pomaderris intermedia lemon dogwood Dicotyledon yes r moderate
Pomaderris oraria subsp. oraria bassian dogwood Dicotyledon r moderate
Pomaderris paniculosa subsp. paralia
shining dogwood Dicotyledon r moderate
Pomaderris phylicifolia subsp. ericoides
revolute narrowleaf dogwood
Dicotyledon yes r high
Pomaderris phylicifolia subsp. phylicifolia
narrowleaf dogwood Dicotyledon yes r moderate
State of the forests Tasmania 2017 370
Table 1.3.a.1Assessment of the potential risk to threatened and priority Tasmanian forest-associated flora species from loss of genetic diversity or isolation
Species Common name Group Forest dwelling
TSP Act
EPBC Act
1.3.a risk category
Pomaderris pilifera subsp. talpicutica
moleskin dogwood Dicotyledon yes e VU high
Poranthera petalifera mountain poranthera Dicotyledon v VU high
Prostanthera rotundifolia roundleaf mintbush Dicotyledon yes v moderate
Puccinellia perlaxa spreading saltmarshgrass Monocotyledon r high
Pultenaea humilis dwarf bushpea Dicotyledon yes v high
Pultenaea mollis soft bushpea Dicotyledon yes v moderate
Pultenaea prostrata silky bushpea Dicotyledon yes v high
Pultenaea sericea chaffy bushpea Dicotyledon v high
Ranunculus acaulis dune buttercup Dicotyledon r low
Ranunculus collicola lake augusta buttercup Dicotyledon r high
Ranunculus diminutus brackish buttercup Dicotyledon e high
Ranunculus jugosus twinned buttercup Dicotyledon r moderate
Ranunculus prasinus midlands buttercup Dicotyledon e EN high
Ranunculus pumilio var. pumilio ferny buttercup Dicotyledon yes r moderate
Rhodanthe anthemoides chamomile sunray Dicotyledon r high
Rhytidosporum inconspicuum alpine appleberry Dicotyledon yes e high
Rumex bidens mud dock Dicotyledon v high
Ruppia megacarpa largefruit seatassel Monocotyledon r moderate
Ruppia tuberosa tuberous seatassel Monocotyledon r high
Rytidosperma indutum tall wallabygrass Monocotyledon yes r moderate
Rytidosperma remotum remote wallabygrass Monocotyledon r high
Sagina diemensis tasmanian pearlwort Dicotyledon e EN high
Scaevola aemula fairy fanflower Dicotyledon yes e high
Scaevola albida pale fanflower Dicotyledon v high
Schenkia australis spike centaury Dicotyledon r moderate
Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani
river clubsedge Monocotyledon r high
Schoenus brevifolius zigzag bogsedge Monocotyledon r high
Schoenus latelaminatus medusa bogsedge Monocotyledon yes e moderate
Scleranthus brockiei mountain knawel Dicotyledon yes r low
Scleranthus diander tufted knawel Dicotyledon yes v moderate
Scleranthus fasciculatus spreading knawel Dicotyledon yes v low
Scutellaria humilis dwarf skullcap Dicotyledon yes r high
Senecio campylocarpus bulging fireweed Dicotyledon v high
Senecio psilocarpus swamp fireweed Dicotyledon e VU high
Senecio squarrosus leafy fireweed Dicotyledon yes r moderate
Sicyos australis star cucumber Dicotyledon r high
Siloxerus multiflorus small wrinklewort Dicotyledon yes r high
Solanum opacum greenberry nightshade Dicotyledon yes e high
Sowerbaea juncea purple rushlily Monocotyledon v moderate
State of the forests Tasmania 2017 371
Table 1.3.a.1Assessment of the potential risk to threatened and priority Tasmanian forest-associated flora species from loss of genetic diversity or isolation
Species Common name Group Forest dwelling
TSP Act
EPBC Act
1.3.a risk category
Spyridium eriocephalum var. eriocephalum
heath dustymiller Dicotyledon yes e high
Spyridium lawrencei small-leaf dustymiller Dicotyledon yes v EN moderate
Spyridium obcordatum creeping dustymiller Dicotyledon yes v VU moderate
Spyridium parvifolium var. molle soft dustymiller Dicotyledon yes r high
Spyridium parvifolium var. parvifolium
coast dustymiller Dicotyledon yes r moderate
Spyridium vexilliferum var. vexilliferum
helicopter bush Dicotyledon yes r moderate
Stackhousia pulvinaris alpine candles Dicotyledon v moderate
Stackhousia subterranea grassland candles Dicotyledon yes e high
Stellaria multiflora subsp. nebulosa
nebulous rayless starwort Dicotyledon yes r high
Stenanthemum pimeleoides propeller plant Dicotyledon yes v VU moderate
Stenopetalum lineare narrow threadpetal Dicotyledon yes e high
Stonesiella selaginoides clubmoss bushpea Dicotyledon yes e EN high
Stuckenia pectinata fennel pondweed Monocotyledon r high
Stylidium beaugleholei fan triggerplant Dicotyledon yes r moderate
Stylidium despectum small triggerplant Dicotyledon yes r moderate
Stylidium perpusillum tiny triggerplant Dicotyledon yes r high
Taraxacum aristum mountain dandelion Dicotyledon yes r high
Taraxacum cygnorum coast dandelion Dicotyledon VU high
Tetratheca ciliata northern pinkbells Dicotyledon yes r high
Tetratheca gunnii shy pinkbells Dicotyledon yes e CR high
Teucrium corymbosum forest germander Dicotyledon yes r low
Thismia rodwayi fairy lanterns Monocotyledon yes r moderate
Thryptomene micrantha ribbed heathmyrtle Dicotyledon yes v moderate
Tmesipteris parva small forkfern Pteridophyte yes v high
Tricoryne elatior yellow rushlily Monocotyledon yes v high
Tricostularia pauciflora needle bogsedge Monocotyledon r high
Triglochin minutissima tiny arrowgrass Monocotyledon r moderate
Triglochin mucronata prickly arrowgrass Monocotyledon e high
Triptilodiscus pygmaeus dwarf sunray Dicotyledon yes v moderate
Trithuria submersa submerged watertuft Monocotyledon yes r high
Uncinia elegans handsome hooksedge Monocotyledon yes r moderate
Utricularia australis yellow bladderwort Dicotyledon r high
Utricularia tenella pink bladderwort Dicotyledon r moderate
Utricularia violacea violet bladderwort Dicotyledon r high
Vallisneria australis river ribbons Monocotyledon r moderate
Velleia paradoxa spur velleia Dicotyledon yes v moderate
Veronica ciliolata subsp. fiordensis
ben lomond cushionplant Dicotyledon v VU high
Veronica novae-hollandiae coast speedwell Dicotyledon v moderate
State of the forests Tasmania 2017 372
Table 1.3.a.1Assessment of the potential risk to threatened and priority Tasmanian forest-associated flora species from loss of genetic diversity or isolation
Species Common name Group Forest dwelling
TSP Act
EPBC Act
1.3.a risk category
Veronica plebeia trailing speedwell Dicotyledon yes r moderate
Viminaria juncea golden spray Dicotyledon yes e high
Viola caleyana swamp violet Dicotyledon yes r high
Viola cunninghamii alpine violet Dicotyledon r moderate
Viola hederacea subsp. curtisiae
montane ivyleaf violet Dicotyledon r high
Vittadinia australasica var. oricola
coast new-holland-daisy Dicotyledon e high
Vittadinia burbidgeae smooth new-holland-daisy Dicotyledon yes r moderate
Vittadinia cuneata var. cuneata fuzzy new-holland-daisy Dicotyledon yes r moderate
Vittadinia gracilis woolly new-holland-daisy Dicotyledon yes r moderate
Vittadinia muelleri narrowleaf new-holland-daisy
Dicotyledon yes r moderate
Westringia angustifolia narrowleaf westringia Dicotyledon yes r moderate
Wilsonia humilis silky wilsonia Dicotyledon r high
Wilsonia rotundifolia roundleaf wilsonia Dicotyledon r moderate
Wurmbea latifolia subsp. vanessae
broadleaf early nancy Monocotyledon e high
Xanthorrhoea arenaria sand grasstree Monocotyledon yes v VU moderate
Xanthorrhoea bracteata shiny grasstree Monocotyledon yes v EN moderate
Xerochrysum bicolor eastcoast everlasting Dicotyledon yes r moderate
Xerochrysum palustre swamp everlasting Dicotyledon yes v VU high
Zieria littoralis downy zieria Dicotyledon yes r moderate
Zieria veronicea subsp. veronicea
pink zieria Dicotyledon yes e high
Zygophyllum billardierei coast twinleaf Dicotyledon yes r low
State of the forests Tasmania 2017 373
Table 1.3.a.2 Assessment of the risk to Tasmanian threatened vertebrate fauna from loss of genetic diversity or isolation
The table also indicates whether a Recovery Plan has been developed for species, and the status of
species on the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act.
Abbreviations used to represent status: x = extinct; e = endangered; v = vulnerable; r = rare
Table 1.3.a.2 Assessment of the risk to Tasmanian threatened vertebrate fauna from loss of genetic diversity or isolation
Species assessed as potentially having a HIGH risk of genetic loss or isolation
Fish Galaxias auratus golden galaxias Recovery plan r
Fish Galaxias fontanus Swan galaxias Recovery plan e
Amphibian Limnodynastes peroni Perons Marsh frog e
Bird Neophema chrysogaster orange-bellied parrot Recovery plan e
Bird Pardalotus quadragintus forty-spotted pardalote Recovery Plan e
Bird Acanthornis magnus greenianus King Island scrubtit Recovery plan e
Bird Acanthiza pusilla archibaldi King Island thornbill Recovery plan e
Fish Galaxiella pusilla dwarf galaxias Recovery plan r
Bird Lathamus discolor swift parrot Recovery plan e
Mammal Sarcophilus harrisii Tasmanian devil e
Mammal Pseudomys novaehollandiae New Holland mouse e
Species assessed as potentially having a MODERATE risk of genetic loss or isolation
Fish Galaxias johnstoni Clarence galaxias Recovery plan e
Fish Galaxias tanycephalus saddled galaxias Recovery plan v
Bird Platycercus caledonicus brownii King Island green rosella Recovery plan v
Bird Alcedo azurea azure kingfisher e
Amphibian Litoria raniformis green and golden frog Recovery plan v
Species assessed as potentially having a LOW risk of genetic loss or isolation
Fish Prototroctes maraena Australian grayling Recovery plan v
Fish Galaxias parvus Swamp galaxias Recovery plan
Fish Paragalaxias mesotes Arthurs paragalaxias Recovery plan
Fish Paragalaxias electroides Great lake paragalaxias Recovery plan
Fish Paragalaxias dissimilis Shannon paragalaxias Recovery plan
Bird Haliaeetus leucogaster white-bellied sea eagle Recovery plan v
Bird Aquila audax wedge-tailed eagle Recovery plan e
Bird Accipiter novaehollandiae grey goshawk e
Bird Tyto novaehollandiae masked owl e
Bird Alcedo azurea azure kingfisher e
Mammal Dasyurus maculatus spotted-tailed quoll r
State of the forests Tasmania 2017 374
Table 1.3.a.2 Assessment of the risk to Tasmanian threatened vertebrate fauna from loss of genetic diversity or isolation
Species assessed as having an UNKNOWN risk of genetic loss or isolation
Reptile Pseudemoia rawlinsoni glossy grass skink r
Reptile Pseudemoia pagenstecheri tussock skink v
State of the forests Tasmania 2017 375
APPENDIX 3.1.a: PEST AND DISEASE SITUATION IN PLANTATIONS ON STATE FOREST (until 2013) and Permanent Timber
Production Zone land (2014 onwards)
APPENDIX 3.1.a: Table 1(a) Insect pests in Pinus radiata plantations
2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16
Sirex wood wasp (Sirex noctilio)
Static trapping detected Sirex in 3/4 plantations. Nematodes introduced into two plantations.
Static trapping detected Sirex in 1/4 plantations; Ibalia leucospoides was present in three of these. Nematodes introduced into two plantations.
Static trapping detected Sirex in 4/4 plantations; Ibalia leucospoides was present in two of these.
Static trapping detected Sirex in 4/4 plantations; Ibalia leucospoides was present in two of these.
Static trapping detected Sirex in 4/5 plantations. No Ibalia leucospoides were caught this year in any of the blocks. This is the first year where they have been absent. Nematodes introduced into two plantations.
Mutliple areas of localised damage across north of state (18 ha).
Localised areas of damage in north-east (25 ha) and substantial windthrow in two recently thinned coupes in central north (60 ha).
Localised patches of windthrow in north-east (16 ha).
Localised patches of windthrow across the north of the state (33 ha).
Nutrient disorders (excluding N and P limitation which are widespread)
Localised symptoms of boron deficiency across ~17 ha in the north-east.
No problems reported (previous symptoms abated following thinning).
No problems reported. No problems reported. No problems reported.
Drought/water deficit/desiccation
No problems reported. Transplant failure due to desiccation of seedlings across 268 ha in the north-east.
Transplant failure due to desiccation of seedlings across 331 ha in the north-east.
Copious resin bleeding caused by extended dry conditions across 367 ha on the north-east coast.
Desiccation of infills resulted in variable stocking across 198 ha in the north-east.
State of the forests Tasmania 2017 378
APPENDIX 3.1.a: Table 1(d) Vertebrate Pest Browsers in Pinus radiata plantations
2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16
Wallaby bark stripping of young trees
Affected 1034 ha, 75 ha of which had significant ringbarking mortality.
Affected 1214 ha, 29 ha of which had significant ringbarking mortality.
Affected 1157 ha. Affected 1249 ha, 90 ha of which had significant ringbarking mortality.
Affected 937 ha,127 ha of which had significant ringbarking mortality.
Possum bark stripping of mid rotation/older trees
Top death scattered through 42 ha primarily in two blocks in the north-west.
Top death scattered through 44 ha in two blocks in the north-west.
Damage limited to 24 ha in a single block in the north-west.
Dead tops scattered through 29 ha primarily in the north-west.
Dead tops scattered through 70 ha in the central north and north-west.
Shoot browsing of seedlings/young trees
Affected 17 ha of which 10 ha had poor stocking.
Affected 116 ha of which 33 ha had reduced stocking.
Affected 164 ha of which 61 ha had reduced stocking.
Affected 212 ha. Affected 68 ha.
State of the forests Tasmania 2017 379
APPENDIX 3.1.a: Table 2(a) Insect pests in Eucalyptus plantations
2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16
Leaf beetles (Paropsisterna spp.)
3,525 of the 19,333 ha monitored had above-threshold populations of which 2,361 ha was sprayed. 2,743 and 233 ha suffered moderate and severe defoliation, respectively.
6,137 of the 14,530 ha monitored had above-threshold populations of which 4,741 ha were sprayed. 4,059 and 809 ha suffered moderate and severe defoliation, respectively.
1,543 ha of the 13,454 ha monitored had above-threshold populations of which 887 ha were sprayed. 3,073 and 410 ha suffered moderate and severe defoliation, respectively.
695 of the 11,288 ha monitored had above-threshold populations of which 409 ha were sprayed. 1,305 and 272 ha suffered moderate and severe defoliation, respectively.
779 of the 9,291 ha monitored had above-threshold populations of which 558 ha were sprayed. 1,153 suffered moderate defoliation.
Eucalypt weevil (Gonipterus platensis formerly. G. scutellatus)
No significant defoliation detected.
Moderate defoliation of 127 ha in southern plantations.
Moderate defoliation of 402 ha in southern plantations.
No significant defoliation detected.
Moderate defoliation of 181 ha and severe severe defoliation of 37 ha in southern plantations.
Autumn gum moth (Mnesampela privata)
No significant populations or damage detected.
No significant populations or damage detected.
Moderate damage in 124 ha in the north-west.
Moderate damage in 35 ha in the north-west.
Severe damage in 18 ha of pulp plantation in north-west.
Gum leaf skeletoniser (Uraba lugens)
Widespread populations throughout state but severe defoliation limited to 4 ha.
No significant damage reported.
Severe damage reported for 2 ha in the north-east.
No significant damage reported.
No significant damage reported.
Other defoliating insects.
No reports of damage by other defoliators.
No reports of damage by other defoliators.
No reports of damage by other defoliators.
No reports of damage by other defoliators.
No reports of damage by other defoliators.
State of the forests Tasmania 2017 380
APPENDIX 3.1.a: 2(a) Insect pests in Eucalyptus plantations (cont’d)
2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16
Psyllids No significant damage reported.
No significant damage reported.
No significant damage reported.
No significant damage reported.
No significant damage reported.
Stem borers Borer damage associated with mortality across 217 ha of plantation.
Borer damage associated with mortality across 82 ha of plantation.
Borer damage associated with mortality across 72 ha of plantation.
Borer damage associated with mortality across 33 ha of plantation
Borer damage associated with mortality across 24 ha of plantation.
A major component of ongoing poor crown density and defoliation across 2,731 ha of mid-rotation plantations, mainly in the north-east.
A major component of ongoing poor crown density and defoliation across 1,806 ha of mid-rotation plantations, mainly in the north-east.
Substantial crown recovery saw significant crown damage due to these fungi reduced to 353 ha.
Localised very wet summer in north-east saw an outbreak of MLD. Was primary cause of defoliation across 759 ha and contributed to damage across a further 1,347 ha.
Very wet January in same region saw MLD contributing to ongoing defoliation and reduced crown density across 1,825 ha.
Stem cankers (mainly Holocryphia eucalypti) only in association with damage from wood-boring insects.
Stem cankers (mainly Holocryphia eucalypti) only in association with damage from wood-boring insects.
Stem cankers (mainly Holocryphia eucalypti) only in association with damage from wood-boring insects.
Stem cankers (mainly Holocryphia eucalypti) only in association with damage from wood-boring insects.
Stem cankers (mainly Holocryphia eucalypti) only in association with damage from wood-boring insects.
Phytophthora root rot (Phytophthora cinnamomi)
Not recorded as the primary causal agent for any significant problems.
Not recorded as the primary causal agent for any significant problems.
Not recorded as the primary causal agent for any significant problems.
Not recorded as the primary causal agent for any significant problems.
Not recorded as the primary causal agent for any significant problems.
Armillaria root rot (Armillaria spp.)
Mortality in small, localised patches (0.2 ha).
Small patch in single coupe in central north (0.1 ha)..
Patchy mortality throughout 43 ha of a single coupe in north-west.
Patchy mortality throughout 43 ha of a single coupe in north-west.
No new significant mortality detected.
State of the forests Tasmania 2017 382
APPENDIX 3.1.a: Table 2(c) Environmental and site-related problems in Eucalyptus spp. plantations
2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16
Wind and storm Localised stem lean and windthrow across 2 ha in a single coupe in the central north.
Windthrow of up to 30% of stems across 14 ha in a single coupe in the north-east.
Scattered windthrow and stem breakage across multiple coupes in the south covering around 100 ha.
Scattered windthrow and stem breakage across multiple coupes in the south covering 191 ha.
Ongoing windthrow from previous year in a single coupe and fresh windthrow following thinning in another (74 ha).
Drought None reported as direct cause.
22 ha of scattered or localised mortality mainly associated with ridge lines and rocky knolls.
None reported as direct cause.
None reported as direct cause.
Foliage death and scattered or localised mortality associated with shallow and/or rocky soils (12 ha).
Nutrient deficiencies / imbalance1
Early branch death (89 ha), reduced growth (423 ha), reduced crown density (132 ha) and variable growth (241 ha) were all associated with nutrient limitation.
Early branch death (15 ha), reduced growth (359 ha), reduced crown density (52 ha) and variable growth (555 ha) were all associated with nutrient limitation.
Early branch death (11 ha), reduced growth (333 ha), reduced crown density (15 ha) and variable growth (211 ha) were all associated with nutrient limitation.
Reduced growth (178 ha), reduced crown density (37 ha) and variable growth (113 ha) were all associated with nutrient limitation.
None reported.
Other environmental
Cold, exposure and frost contributed to shoot damage, stem defects and reduced performance across 224 ha. Poor drainage caused reduced or variable performance across 42 ha.
Poor drainage and exposure caused foliage discolouration or reduced performance across 38 ha. 85 ha of plantation burnt in wildfires in north-west of state.
Localised drainage issues caused variable performance across 11 ha.
None reported. Extensive wildfires in the north-west of the state during summer of 2015-16 burnt 3,286 ha of plantation. 1,095 ha minimal (<10 %), 921 ha patchy (10-75%), 1,270 ha complete (>75%).
1. Reporting on performance and health issues associated with nutrient limitations dropped out of the health surveillance program as fertilising and pruning programs were discontinued.
State of the forests Tasmania 2017 383
APPENDIX 3.1.a: Table 2(d) Vertebrate pests in Eucalyptus spp. plantations
2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16
Shoot browsing Reduced stocking across 134 ha of pulp, localised retarded growth affected 7 ha.
None detected. Patchy defoliation of seedlings in a single coupe across 88 ha.
None detected. None detected.
Possum damage None detected. Patchy branch breakage across 72 ha.
None detected. None detected. None detected.
State of the forests Tasmania 2017 384
APPENDIX 6.3a: RESERVATION OF HIGH QUALITY WILDERNESS
APPENDIX 6.3a: RESERVATION OF HIGH QUALITY WILDERNESS
APPENDIX 6.3a: RESERVATION OF HIGH QUALITY WILDERNESS
High Quality Wilderness
Area
Total wilderness
area (ha)
1996 2001 2006 2011 2016
Total
reserved
(ha & %)
Total
reserved
(ha & %)
Total reserved (ha & %)
Total reserved (ha & %)
Formal reserves
(ha)
Informal &
private reserves (ha)
Total reserved
(ha & %)
Increase since 1996
(ha & %)
Increase since 2001
(ha & %)
Increase since 2006
(ha & %)
Increase since 2011
(ha & %)
(95%) (95%) (99%) (75%) (6%) (4%) (4%)
Mt Field 15 400 13 600 (88%)
13 600 (88%)
13 800
(90%)
13 800
(90%) 14 500 300
14 800
(96%)
1 200
(8%)
1 200
(8%)
1 000
(6%)
900
(6%)
Mt Heemskirk 10 900 0
0%
9 900 (91%)
10 200
(94%)
10 300
(94%) 10 700 200
10 900
(100%)
10 900
(100%)
900
(9%)
600
(6%)
600
(6%)
Mt William 7 700 7 200
(93%)
7 200 (93%)
7 200
(93%)
7 200
(93%) 7 100 0
7 100
(93%)
- 100
(<-1%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
Norfolk Range 92 300 80 100 (87%)
90 000 (98%)
91 200
(99%)
91 200
(99%) 89 900 1 400
91 300
(99%)
10 900
(12%)
1 200
(1%)
100
(0%)
100
(0%)
Savage 51 600 32 200 (62%)
35 000 (68%)
49 300
(95%)
49 300
(96%) 46 700 4 200
50 900
(99%)
18 700
(36%)
15 900
(31%)
1 700
(3%)
1 600
(3%)
South West 1 182 300 1 117 100
(94%) 1 150 000
(97%)
1 152 900
(98%)
1 153 000
(98%) 1171 800 2 000
1 173 800
(99%)
56 700
(5%)
23 900
(2%)
20 900
(2%)
20 700
(2%)
Sumac 14, 000 10 800 (77%)
11 000 (78%)
11 300
(80%)
11 300
(80%) 10 800 2 600
13 400
(95%)
2 600
(18%)
2 400
(17%)
2 100
(15%)
2 100
(15%)
Total HQ Wilderness 1 937 900 1 659 600 (86%)
1 836 300 4 (95%)
1 880 800
(97%)
1 881 100
(97%) 1884 600 36 100
1 920 700
(99%)
261 100 (13%)
84 400
(4%)
39 900
(2%)
39 600
(2%)
Notes:
1. The extent of some wilderness areas published in the 1996 CRA and 1997 RFA included areas of sea (eg Bathurst Harbour); these are excluded in the above table.
State of the forests Tasmania 2017 386
2. Areas are rounded to the nearest 100ha to reflect the spatial resolution of the wilderness mapping, which was based on 1km x 1km units.
3. The 2016 reserve data is as at 30 June 2016.
4. The figure for the total reserved area of High Quality Wilderness in 2001 was incorrectly quoted in Table 6.2a of the report, Sustainability Indicators for Tasmanian Forests 1996 – 2001 as the total (1 937 900 ha). It should have read 1 836 300 ha. The percentage figure in the previous report was correct (95%).
5. Some apparent small decreases in the area reserved in 2016 are due to a more precise input coastline into the formal reserve data.
6. In the review period there have been no updates to the wilderness inventory. The extents of the originally mapped wilderness areas are likely to have been reduced through adjacent land uses and roading etc. Such loss in extent has not been taken into account in the total area.
7. Some calculations for the increase in reserved area may appear to be erroneous. This is due to rounding errors.
State of the forests Tasmania 2017 387
APPENDIX 7.1.b: COMMUNITY AWARENESS
Government systems
Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment (DPIPWE)
The activities of the DPIPWE underpin many of the actions taken across the government and
private sectors, supporting the State’s growth as a competitive place to do business and to
invest in, while helping maintain the unique lifestyle of Tasmania’s people. The Department is
the government’s primary interface with rural and regional communities.
DPIPWE actively fosters and builds partnerships with the community, industry and the
different tiers of government.
Forestry Tasmania
During the first half of the reporting period, the following applied. The Forestry Tasmania
mission is to ‘manage State forests for optimum community benefit’ which is enhanced by
active communication and engagement with the community and fostering public support
through sponsorship and development programs.
Forestry Tasmania funds Community Liaison Officers who are an important public point of
contact and information on forestry matters and FT's local projects. Across the state, Forestry
Tasmania has helped local communities develop walking tracks and picnic areas; partnerships
such as these provide a sense of ownership of the local forest areas around the State.
Through the 'Community Assist' program, Forestry Tasmania has continued to support
community service projects that have become a hallmark of the organisation’s input in regional
areas. These include events such as sporting activities, art, theatre and cultural activities.
Forestry Tasmania maintains a number of Community Forest Agreements with business,
community and tourism/recreational organisations with an interest in forest management and
forest use.
Several programs specifically seek to engage school students, including the 'Planet Ark Schools
Tree Day' to encourage tree planting, the 'Care for People' schools award, and the Forest
Education Foundation.
Other programs of community engagement include:
Regular surveys of public attitudes to Forestry Tasmania and forest-related issues
Active communications about planned burning programs, via dedicated websites, media
advisories, and newspaper flyers
Advertising of craftwood and specialty timbers availability, and of Adventure Forests
tourism sites and activities
Frequent media releases and media conferences on news and topical issues
Active and assessed disclosure and publication of information requested under Right to
Information legislation
Publication of the 'Branchline' e-newsletter to provide stakeholders with information about
current FT activities and issues
State of the forests Tasmania 2017 388
Production (with Southern Cross Television) of the 'Going Bush' television series, featuring
topical forestry subjects in an accessible and popular format; and
Regular public lectures on scientific and forest management topics through the 'Forestry
Talks' series.
During the second half of the reporting period Forestry Tasmania’s focus moved from
community outreach to operational engagement, in a large part driven by changing business
objectives and certification requirements.
Private Forests Tasmania (PFT)
The objectives of PFT as set out in the Private Forests Act 1994 include ‘to foster the use and
values of trees in sustainable land management’. As in past years, this environmental objective
remained a significant aspect of PFT’s work.
To achieve this it is PFT’s vision that the Tasmanian private forestry sector is well informed,
respected, sustainable, environmentally sound and a major driver in the Tasmanian economy;
operates in a collaborative and communicative manner; utilises best-practices approaches; is at
the forefront of the adoption of appropriate technologies; and works within a sound regulatory
environment.
State of the forests Tasmania 2017 389
APPENDIX 7.1.d: SUSTAINABILITY MEASURING AND MONITORING
PROGRAMS
APPENDIX 7.1.d: SUSTAINABILITY MEASURING AND MONITORING PROGRAMS
SFM Criterion
Type of Program
Program name
Lead agency Description
Biological Diversity
Measure TASVEG Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment (DPIPWE)
Vegetation mapping at 1:25 000 and supporting database which provides an improved basis for monitoring, with finer spatial resolution.
Monitor Monitoring Vegetation Extent Project
DPIPWE Assessment and implementation of methodologies for monitoring of vegetation type, extent, and distribution
Forest operation mapping
Forestry Tasmania (FT) and Private Forests Tasmania (PFT)
Forestry Tasmania maps annual changes on public land which identifies changes that are used to update RFA forest community and old-growth mapping. PFT collates major forest changes on private land from information obtained from private commercial forest managers, aerial photography, satellite imagery and field work
Fauna and flora population level survey
DPIPWE Population levels of threatened species, species of conservation significance and some endemics are monitored periodically by the DPIPWE. Recovery Plans for some species require ongoing population surveys.
Productive capacity of forest ecosystems
Measure National Plantation Inventory
PFT and FT Survey the extent of plantation forest estate across all tenures.
Timber inventory
FT and larger private commercial forest managers
Randomly sampled inventory plots are measured across forest estates and the results are used as the basis for calculating planned yields.
Monitor Compliance reports
Forest Practices Authority (FPA)
The achievement of reforestation standards, including stocking, is self-monitored and supported by lodgement of a compliance report after each discrete operational phase within a forest practices plan
State of the forests Tasmania 2017 390
APPENDIX 7.1.d: SUSTAINABILITY MEASURING AND MONITORING PROGRAMS
SFM Criterion
Type of Program
Program name
Lead agency Description
Operational standards
FT and larger private commercial forest managers
To ensure that forest operations such as planting, pruning, and harvesting meet acceptable standards, FT and major private industrial companies routinely undertake quality-assurance audits and assessments
Forest practices planning
FPA 15% assessment of forest practices plans and their implementation
Ecosytem health and vitality
Monitor Policy for Maintaing a Permanent Native Forest Estate
FPA Monitors areas of native forests that will be maintained above minimal levels, expressed as a percentage of the native forest estate assessed in 1996 under the RFA
Measure and monitor
Systematic forest health surveys
FT and larger private commercial forest managers
Identifies the need for remedial treatments such as pest management, application of fertiliser, and silvicultural operations
Soil and Water resources
Measure Soil profile program
FPA and DPIPWE
Develop whole of State forest soil information based on description of 32 soil profiles.
Monitor Warra Long Term Ecological Research site
FT Soils, biodiversity, hydrology and their interactions are being monitored to establish baseline measurements and evaluate the impact of forest practices.
Carbon cycle
Measure and monitor
National Carbon Accounting System
Australian Greenhouse Office (Cwth)
In conjunction with Tasmanian agencies, continues to refine systems which measure and monitor inventories of forest biomass.
Warra Long Term Ecological Research Site
DPIPWE and FT
Assessing the scientific values of Tasmanian forests through dendrochronology of long-lived trees to monitor climate change.
Socio-economic benefits
Monitor Tourism visitor number surveys
PWS and FT Routine of visitor numbers to selected reserves and facilities
State of the forests Tasmania 2017 391
APPENDIX 7.1.d: SUSTAINABILITY MEASURING AND MONITORING PROGRAMS
SFM Criterion
Type of Program
Program name
Lead agency Description
Legal institutions
Monitor State of the Forests reporting
FPA Report each five years on the status of, and changes to, Tasmania’s forests across all tenure
Monitor State of the Environment reporting
Tasmanian Planning Commission (TPC)
Reports each five years on the condition of the environment; trends and changes in the environment; the achievement of resource management objectives; and recommendations for action to be taken in relation to the management of the environment.
Measure and monitor
State of the TWWHA Report
DPIPWE Reports on evaluation of management effectiveness under the management plan
State of the forests Tasmania 2017 392
APPENDIX 7.1.e: SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATIONS RELEVANT TO TASMANIAN
FORESTS FROM 2011 TO 2016
1. Biodiversity conservation and management
Journal publications
Allchin R, Kirkpatrick J, Kriwoken L (2013) On not protecting the parrot: The impact of
conservation and planning legislation on an endangered species in Tasmania. Journal of
International Wildlife Law and Policy 16(1), 81-104.
Almeida EAB, Pie MR, Brady SG, and Danforth BN (2012) Biogeography and diversification
of colletid bees (Hymenoptera: Colletidae): Emerging patterns from the southern end of